NUTAKKI SESHARATANAM Vs. SUB COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 577 of 1985 filed in that Court.

(2.) Very few facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal.

(3.) The appellant is the owner of a plot comprising roughly 2 acres of land in Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada Taluk, in the Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire about 1 acre and 89 cents out of the aforesaid land for a public purpose. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was published in the Government Gazette on February 9, 1976. The substance of the said notification was published in the locality where the land proposed to be acquired is situated, on April 2, 1978, long after the period of 40 days within which it was required to be published as per the provisions of Section4(1) of the said Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 9 of 1983). 'Enquiry under Section 5 A of the said Act was dispensed with invoking the urgency clause as per Section 17(4) of the said Act. Notification under Section 6 was published on the same day as the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. An inquiry was conducted regarding the fixation of compensation to be awarded to the appellant and others whose lands were acquired under the said notification. It appears that during the course of the said inquiry the appellant stated to the Land Acquisition Officer concerned that he was willing to agree to the land being acquired provided he was given compensation in a lump-sum. Probably, the reason was that if the compensation was awarded in a lurnp-sum without delay, the appellant might have been able to purchase some other land, as his holding was under the ceiling limit. The aforesaid facts have been found by the trial Court and accepted by the High Court. On November 9, 1979, before any award was made, the consent to the acquisition of the land given by the appellant, as aforestated, was withdrawn by him and on May 14, 1981, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. The learned single Judge before whom the said writ petition along with another writ petition came up for hearing held that the appellant had agreed to the acquisition of the said land on compensation being paid as aforestated, and hence it was not open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the said notification issued under Sec. 4(1) and Section 6 of the said Act. It was held by him that the withdrawal of the said representation or consent by the appellant did not in any manner assist him. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by the appellant without going into the merits of the aforesaid petition on the aforesaid basis. This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court which dismissed the aforesaid writ appeal. It is the correctness of these decisions which is impugned before us.