KATARI SATYANARAYANA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA AT CHILAKALAPUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of Ac 2-00 situate in Survey number 69 at Gudivada village, Gudivada Taluk, Krishna District is questioned Proceedings have been initiated after the amendment of the Indian Land Acquisition Act by the Andhra Pradesh Act 9 of 1981. The acquisition is for providing house sites to backward classes and economically weaker sections. The notification under Section 4(1) has been published In the District Gazette dated 9-11 -83 and declaration has also been published In the gazette on the same date. Enquiry under Section 5A has been dispensed with and under Section 17(4) possession has been directed to be taken immediately. According to the petitioners there has been no publication in the locality as required bv Section 4(1), but In the counter it is stated that the said publication was made on 17-12-83. There is also a controversy about the fact whether possession has been taken or not, while the petltioaers assert that no possession is taken, in tte counter it is stated that possession was taken aa 6-2-84.

(2.) The said land and some other lands beloaglag to Sri Kalabasteeswara Swamy Devasthanam are being acquired and the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the land, which it subject matter of this writ potition. The ownor that is is Devasthanam has given consent the acquisition of the land. Even in the award enquiry tha Devasthanam has taken the same plea. The petitioners had appeared in the award enquiry aad requested for dropping the proceeding or in the alternative for award of conversation mentioned by them. The Devasthanam had also filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners under the provisions of the Andbra Tenancy Act and the primary authority (District Munsif) ordered eviction of the petitioners and the petitioners have carried the matter in appeal to the District Court which is still pending and there is stay of eviction by the appellate authority.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners raiying upom a judgment of this court in P Narayana Rao vs. Spcial Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General) Hiderguda (1) 1984 (1) APLJ 80 that in an acquisition proceeding after amendment of the Act, the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 in the same gazette, particularly the notification under S. 6 before the publication ia the locality, vitiates the acquisition proceedings. Tha 'earned Government Pleader, however, contends that the petitioners being only tenants against whom an order of eviction is passed cannot object to the validity of the acquisition proceedings, when the owner has given a consent and has no objection for the acquisition. He has relied upon a judgment of this court in WP No. 9140/1982 dated 21st November 1983 for this purpose. In the said judgment, the learned Judge has observed that a tenant has no right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings, where the owner is not objecting. The learned Judge fu'ther observed that whatever the other rights the tenant has, he can work out against the landlord. I do not think that a person who has got an interest in the land particularly, after the coming into force of the Andbra Tenancy Act, cannot challenge the acquisition ptoceedings. When a tenant can take prat in the award enquiry as a person intersted,I do not consider that he will be t c disentitled from challenging the acquisition, on the ground that it may amount to thursting the land on a unwilling owner. The same can be said about the consent of the landlord aho as it may amount to depriving the tenant from his possession. A Bench of this court in the case reported in A Appala Reddy vs. Spl. Tahsildar (2) 1978 (2) APLJ 269 held that a tenant in occupation of the iand, where the Audhra Tenancy Act applies is a person interested within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act and entitled to take part in the award enquiry and to compensation But the observations in the Bench judgment show that the said tenant being in possession will be entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings also. The Government Pleader has also submitted that the view expressed by the learned single Judge in P Narayana Rao vs. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General) Hyderguda (I) supra requires re-con- sideratioa. In view of the fact that I am not agreeing with the view expressed by Sri P A Caoudary J in WP No, 9140/1982 dt. 21-11-83, I think it appropriate that the matter should be referred to a Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, on several aspects raised in this writ petition. The papers may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench. This writ petition coming on for hear ing finally before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jeevan Reddy -and the Hon'ble Mr, Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadrn on this the 14th day of March 1990, The Court delivered the following :