Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1269 (AP)

Meka Seetharatnam v. District Collector

2014-10-13

A.V.SESHA SAI

body2014
ORDER : A.V. Sesha Sai, J. 1. The impugned action in the present writ petition is a typical example of highhandedness on the part of the respondent authorities. It is the minimum expected and the sacred responsibility of the authorities to safeguard and protect the constitutional and statutory rights of the citizens, otherwise there is absolutely no meaning for our value based democratic system and the dreams of our constitutional draftsmen. The laws are made for the betterment of the society and to safeguard and uphold the values in the society. Therefore, the actions of the statutory authorities must necessarily be inconsonance with law but not in breach of law. The actions of the statutory authorities should be in the direction of enhancing and strengthening the confidence of the people in the system. Loss of confidence of the people in the system would result in unrest and chaotic situation in the society and the same is not a good sign in the interest of the nation. 2. In the present writ petition, the draft notification, the draft declaration and the award passed by the respondent authorities under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'the Act') are under challenge. 3. The District Collector, Krishna, first respondent herein issued a draft notification vide proceedings RC G4/4874/2007 dated 13.10.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Act, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.3-11 cents situated in Sy. No. 45/2A, 2B and 2C of Singarayapalem village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District for the purpose of providing house-sites for the weaker sections. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein, issued Form III notice vide RC.A. No. 1392/2007 dated 18.10.2007, calling for objections under Section 5-A of the Act, if any, on or before 03.11.2007 while indicating therein that the same would be enquired into on 05.11.2007 at 11-00 A.M at the office of the second respondent herein. Responding to the same, the petitioner herein submitted the objections on 03.11.2007. Thereafter, the District Collector, first respondent herein vide proceedings RC G4 4874/2007 dated 31.12.2007 overruled the said objections. 4. Responding to the same, the petitioner herein submitted the objections on 03.11.2007. Thereafter, the District Collector, first respondent herein vide proceedings RC G4 4874/2007 dated 31.12.2007 overruled the said objections. 4. In the above background, initially, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition, questioning the draft notification dated 13.10.2007 and the notice dated 18.10.2007 issued by the second respondent herein under Section 5-A of the Act and this Court on 08.01.2008 granted an order of status quo for a period of four weeks. Vide orders dated 22.09.2014 in WPMP. No. 34356 of 2014, this Court permitted the petitioner to assail the draft declaration issued by the first respondent on 07.01.2008, notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act fixing the award enquiry on 28.01.2008 and the Award No. 23 of 2008 dated 06.08.2008 passed by the second respondent/Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore the entire land acquisition proceedings including the award pertaining to the lands of the petitioners are under challenge before this Court in the present writ petition. 5. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit deposed by the second respondent has been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action. 6. Heard Sri Ch. Dhanunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government for Land Acquisition for the respondents apart from perusing the material available on record. 7. Submissions/contentions of Sri Ch.Dhanunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7.1. Proceedings impugned including the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer are highly arbitrary, illegal, highhanded and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7.2. The impugned action of the respondents is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. 7.3. The Collector failed to consider the objections in an objective manner except endorsing the remarks of the Revenue Divisional Officer. 7.4. The respondent authorities failed to give personal hearing to the petitioners before overruling and rejecting the objections of the petitioners. 7.5. The award enquiry said to have been conducted during the subsistence of the status quo order passed by this Court is highly preposterous, no nest and null and void." 8. Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader. 8.1. 7.4. The respondent authorities failed to give personal hearing to the petitioners before overruling and rejecting the objections of the petitioners. 7.5. The award enquiry said to have been conducted during the subsistence of the status quo order passed by this Court is highly preposterous, no nest and null and void." 8. Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader. 8.1. There is no illegality nor irregularity nor infirmity in the impugned proceedings and in the absence of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8.2. In view of dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, the authorities are justified in holding award enquiry and passing the impugned order. 8.3. The rejection of objections filed by the petitioner is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 9. In the light of the above pleadings, submissions and contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are: "1. Whether the impugned proceedings initiated and concluded by the respondents under the provisions of the Act are in accordance with law and whether the same are sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 10. The material available before this Court manifestly discloses that the first respondent/District Collector proposed the lands of the petitioner for acquisition and issued a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 13.10.2007 for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker section people. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notice of 5-A enquiry on 18.10.2007, asking the petitioner to file objections on or before 03.11.2007 while fixing the date of enquiry as 05.11.2007. It is the case of the petitioner herein that she submitted objections on 03.11.2007 and a copy of the same which consists of acknowledgment of the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer is filed along with the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner herein that she submitted objections on 03.11.2007 and a copy of the same which consists of acknowledgment of the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer is filed along with the present writ petition. In the said objections, the objector/petitioner herein stated that the subject land is agricultural land and is not a residential area and there are several other lands which are not agricultural and are barren and which are fit for constructions are available and the acquisition of the land at Singarayapalem for getting the houses constructed for the people of Machilipatnam is unreasonable and untenable. Petitioner also stated that as per the Government of instructions the acquisition of lands of the people belonging to the schedule castes, schedule tribes and backward classes for construction of house-sites is not permissible and that she belongs to backward class. Petitioner further stated that the subject land is a source of income for her and there is plenty of non-agricultural land which is convenient for construction which is left fallow for years together. 11. It is significant to note that a perusal of the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the District Collector, overruling the objections of the petitioner manifestly discloses that the respondents totally ignored the objections of the petitioner and failed to consider any one of the objections. It is also the case of the petitioner that without providing the opportunity of personal hearing to her, the first respondent overruled the objections. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the counter deposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is absolutely and conspicuously silent on this aspect of failure to afford personal hearing to the petitioner. As such, in the absence of such denial, the only conclusion which can be inferred and arrived at is that the respondent authorities did not consider the objections of the petitioner properly. These laches on the part of the respondents would undoubtedly render the impugned proceedings invalid. In this context, it may be appropriate and apposite to mention certain actions which the respondent authorities resorted to pending the writ petition which have direct bearing on the adjudication of the issue involved in this writ petition. 12. This Court, initially on 08.01.2008, granted an order of status quo for a period of four weeks. In this context, it may be appropriate and apposite to mention certain actions which the respondent authorities resorted to pending the writ petition which have direct bearing on the adjudication of the issue involved in this writ petition. 12. This Court, initially on 08.01.2008, granted an order of status quo for a period of four weeks. Despite the said order of status quo, the Land Acquisition Officer/the second respondent herein issued Form VII notice dated 11.01.2008 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, fixing-the date of award enquiry as 28.01.2008. It is the case of the respondents that despite receipt of Section 9(3) and 10 notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Land Acquisition Officer for award enquiry which compelled the Land Acquisition officer to pass the impugned Award. It is also the defense of the respondents that in view of dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, they are perfectly justified in conducting the impugned proceedings which eventually culminated in the impugned award passed by the second respondent/Land Acquisition Officer. It is to be noted in this connection that it is a fact that earlier this Court on 26.02.2008 dismissed the writ petition for default and subsequently vide order dated 24.04.2008 in WPMP. 8695/2008 restored the writ petition. It is an admitted fact that this Court initially granted status quo order on 08.01.2008 for a period of four weeks. Therefore, during the currency of the said order dated 08.01.2008 directing status quo to be maintained, the respondent authorities ought not to have proceeded with the proceedings and on the other hand the respondents on 11.01.2008 issued Section 9(3) and 10 notice in Form VII, asking the petitioner to attend for award enquiry on 28.01.2008. In fact on the said two dates, the orders of status quo were in existence. Therefore justification sought to be pressed into service by the respondents is highly preposterous, iniquitous and presumptuous besides being in total violation of the Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 13. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, in clear and in unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of or divested of his or her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 13. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, in clear and in unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of or divested of his or her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an expropriatory legislation which authorizes and empowers the State and its instrumentalities to acquire the private property of the citizens without reference to their consent. Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the functions under the said Act are required to adhere to and follow the provisions of law scrupulously, meticulously and any deviation from the mandatory requirements of law would render the entire proceedings invalid. In the instant case, the authorities did neither undertake the enquiry in true letter and spirit of Section 5-A of the Act nor they acted in accordance with the status quo granted by this Court on 08.01.2008. It is a settled law as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble apex Court that the right to object for acquisition created under Section 5-A of the Act for the owner of the property is a human right and is a right akin to the fundamental right having regard to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, such a valuable and precious right cannot be dealt with nor can be permitted to be viewed in a routine, mechanical and cavalier manner. The authorities in the present case did neither afford personal hearing to the petitioner nor have they considered any objections raised by the petitioner herein. On the other hand, the authorities in an arbitrary manner issued Section 9(3) and 10 notice and fixed the award enquiry during the currency of the status quo order. This Court cannot remain as a silent spectator for the said illegality and highhanded action nor is this Court prepared to allow the respondents to transgress and flout the orders of this Court. The totality of the facts and circumstances in this case drives this Court towards an irresistible conclusion that the impugned action is highly preposterous and is liable to be deprecated and this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to hold that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent authorities in fixing the award enquiry during the subsistence of the status quo order passed by this Court and passing the award enquiry basing on the said enquiry 14. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings including the award No. 23/2008 dated 06.08.2008 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer/the second respondent herein. However, it is open for the respondents to acquire the subject land if there is necessity by following the relevant legislation. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.