VELIGATI LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eleven writ petitions arise out of land acquisitions made for purpose connected with Nagarjunasagar Project, which is a premier irrigation project undertaken in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Acquisition in all these cases is sought to be made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 as amended by the Nagarjunasagar Project (Acquisition of Land) Act, 32 of 1956. These wit petitions are filed for quashing the acquisition proceedings. In main the validity of the amending Act is questioned in these petitions.

(2.) It is necessary to briefly state the history of the Nagarjunsagar Project and some of the salient provisions of the Nagarjunsagar Project (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 , before we refer to the actual contentions that are raised before us. The Government of India, in their order dated 17th December, 1951, constitnstituted a committee by name Khosla Committee to examine the feasibility of executing the Nagarjunasagar Project on the river Krishna. The Committee favored the execution of the Project and it recommendations were placed before the planning Commission on 8/12/1952. The project was accepted by the Planning Commission and the Nagarjunsagar Project was taken up for execution. Large areas of private lands were acquired for excavation of canals, distributory channels and construction of other works necessary for the project. Thereupon the legislature passed the Nagarjunasagar Project (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956, (Act No. 32 of 1956), which will he hereinafter referred to as the State act, to provide for the acquisition of the lands in the Nagarjunsagar Project area. The preamble of the Act declares the purposes of the Act in the following terms:-----

(3.) The following questions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners; (1) In some of the cases the acquisitions are not for the purposes of the project or for public purposes. (2) Section 17 (4) read with Sec. 17 (1) of the Central Act is unconstitutional. (3) The State Act is unconstitutional as it violates the principles laid down in Articles 14, 19, 31 (1) and 31 (2).