STATE OF HYDERABAD Vs. P BALAJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Government of Andhra Pradesh against the Order of our learned brother, Kumarayya, J., quashing the land acquisition proceedings started by the Collector in relation to a portion of land bearing survey No.62 of the village Bakaram, within the municipal limits of Hyderabad city. The property, which is the subject-matter of this enquiry, was purchased by the respondent in a Court auction held on 23rd September, 1955. He obtained permission from the Municipality for construction of a house thereon and had started construction, when he received a communication dated ist December, 1955 from the Engineer, City Improvement Board, calling upon him to stop construction as the land was earmarked for Industrial Housing Scheme. On this, the respondent caused enquiries to be made and learnt that the Government had sanctioned acquisition of this land as also adjoining lands and that the Collector was directed to take action under rule 6 of the Rules which will be referred to presently and section 12(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereupon the respondent sought the jurisdiction of this Court to quash the land acquisition proceedings under orders of Government on 7th December, 1955.

(2.) The propositions argued on behalf of the respondent were that the proceedings were invalid and liable to be quashed in that there was contravention of the prvisions of rule 5 of the Rules for the acquisition of lands by the Hyderabad City Improvement Board and that there was also inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings under rule 6 of the said Rules and section 12(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. These points were countered by the learned Government Pleader on the plea that the proceedings were in accordiance with law and suffered no inherent defect or infirmity which warranted the quashing of the proceedings. It was also contended by the learned Government Pleader that the fact that the notifications under rules 3 and 5 were issued some years before would not stand in the way of further proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act being initiated.

(3.) The opposition of the Government was overruled by our learned brother who directed the removal of the proceedings on certiorari on the ground that there was no compliance with rule 5 of the Rules and also on the ground that the long delay of nine years had vitiated the further proceedings started in the year 1945. It may be mentioned here that the notification under rule 3 was issued on 9th December, 1945 while the one under rule 5 was issued on 5th May, 1956. It is thus seen that ther was an interval of nearly ten years between the issue of notifications under rules 3 and 5 and the initiation of further proceedings under rule 6 and section 12 (1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. It is this view of the learned Judge that is canvassed before us in this appeal.