Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 889 (AP)

V. Seshachalam v. District Collector

2008-10-17

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
JUDGMENT :- The petitioner is the owner of Ac.1.93 cents of land in Survey No.356 of Madhavaram Village, Thadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. The District Collector, West Godavari, issued notification, dated 21.12.2006, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), proposing to acquire the said land, for the purpose of construction of houses to weaker sections and economically backward communities. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on the same day. Though simultaneous publication of both the notifications was resorted to, the notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued on 17.01.2007. The Gram Sabha of the Village was convened on 03.10.2007. It was resolved that the land in Survey No.35/2, admeasuring Ac.0.93 cents, donated by one Mr.Narni Ramaiah and some other extent of vacant Grama Kantam can be utilized for house sites. The proposed beneficiaries are said to have represented that the acquisition of the land of the petitioner would not be necessary and that the donated land would be more convenient. The petitioner states that though the copy of the resolution was forwarded to the District Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer, respondents 1 and 2 herein, an award was passed on 30.11.2007. The petitioner seeks the relief of setting aside the proceedings, in relation to his land. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that she has recently taken over the charge. She made a reference to the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act and admitted that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held by her predecessor. It is stated that an award was passed on 30.11.2007 after following the procedure. The 2nd respondent filed a separate counter affidavit, on the same lines. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. More than the facts pleaded by the petitioner, the averments in the counter affidavits become more relevant in adjudicating the dispute in this writ petition. It is a matter of record that the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published in the District Gazette on the same day i.e., 21.12.2006. It is only in the publication in the newspapers, that a gap of about 4 to 5 days was maintained between these two notifications. It is a matter of record that the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act were published in the District Gazette on the same day i.e., 21.12.2006. It is only in the publication in the newspapers, that a gap of about 4 to 5 days was maintained between these two notifications. Such a publication was totally impermissible, even if the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. The District Collector, who worked at the relevant point of time in the District, has confounded the confusion. On the one hand, he published both the notifications on one and the same day and on the other, he had chosen to conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. It only demonstrates the callousness, with which he exercised the powers under the Act. It is not known as to what he intended to do with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, once the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was already published. It is no doubt true that an award has been passed and for all practical purposes, the proceedings under the Act in relation to the land of the petitioner have assumed a semblance of finality. However, this Court cannot put a seal of approval on a blatant illegality. Once the respondents have chosen to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, it becomes axiomatic that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act must be set aside. The award passed in the absence of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act equally becomes untenable. Further, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act also becomes untenable, in view of the fact that more than one year had elapsed, from the date of its publication; and no declaration under Section 6 of the Act can be published within the stipulated time. The petitioner did not raise such pleas, obviously because he was not aware of these aspects. His emphasis was mostly upon the consideration of the representation made by the Panchayat Secretary, on the strength of the resolution passed in the Gram Sabha. The petitioner did not raise such pleas, obviously because he was not aware of these aspects. His emphasis was mostly upon the consideration of the representation made by the Panchayat Secretary, on the strength of the resolution passed in the Gram Sabha. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh and to conclude the proceedings, within a reasonable time, duly setting aside the declaration and the award. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act published in the District Gazette on 21.12.2006 and the award, dated 30.11.2007, passed in relation to the land of the petitioner, are set aside. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, before 31.12.2008. It is directed that they shall take into account, the representation of the petitioner as well as the one submitted by the Panchayat Secretary, based on the resolution of the Gram Sabha, dated 03.10.2007. Any declaration under Section 6 of the Act afresh would be treated as legal, if only it is published on or before 15.01.2009 and not otherwise. There shall be no order as to costs.