KOPPINEDI MANGAYAMMA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2005 made in W.P.No.13204 of 2005, wherein the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire an extent of 4.46.31 Hectares for the public purpose of construction of drinking water tank at Kanakalapet was challenged. THE learned Judge dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) AS seen from the order of the learned single Judge, the proceedings was challenged on two grounds. The first ground was that when an alternate and adjacent poramboke land was available besides the land of M/s.Lakshmi Oil Mills, which is also very much nearer to the scheme, yet, the respondents have not chosen to select the said land, but selected the land of the appellant, which is impermissible. The other ground of attack was that the Andhra Pradesh Government proposed to put up water tank and issued a notification for the purpose of acquisition of land and thus there was no real public purpose and the acquisition was unwarranted. The learned Judge, after hearing the Government Pleader, has concluded the issue by stating that the first ground canvassed by the writ petitioner that the alternative lands viz., poramboke land and the lands belonging to one defunct Lakshmi Mill were not acquired is untenable, since it is not open to the petitioner or this Court to direct the Government to select a particular land. The Government is the ultimate authority to select the lands suitable for the purpose. The Court also accepted the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the Committee appointed by the Government has visited the lands and submitted a suitability report and following the same, the acquisition proceedings were initiated. The Court rejected the second ground of attack also by accepting the contention of the respondent that the acquisition proceedings initiated by Andhra Pradesh Government was for a different purpose.

(3.) AS stated in the previous paragraphs, before the learned single Judge, only the two points were argued and it has been rejected by the learned single Judge. The point as to non-furnishing of selection committee report, which rendered the 5-A enquiry vitiated, has not been argued before the learned single Judge.