SUDABATHULA PARTHASARATHY Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are calling in question the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. By G. 0. Rt. No. 1119, dated. 18-8 80, the Government proposed to acquire a total extent of AC. 31-29 cents in the nine survey numbers. Under the notification the power under section 17 (4) was invoked and the enquiry under section 5-A was disposed with. Accordingly, the draft declaration Was also published in the same Gazette, dated 2-9-1980 The petitioners who are interested in some of those survey numbers, have filed this writ Petition, and Sri S. Vankata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners Has urged the following contentions before me viz. (i) that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality, as required by section 4(1) of the Act and, therefore, the notification itself is invalid; (ii) that, since the acquisition is being made for the purpose of a "Company" as delined by the Act, the Government ought to have adopted the procedure prescribed in Part VII of the Act; and (iii) that, there was absolutely no urgency behind the acquisition which warranted the invocation of urgency clause in Section 17 (4) To dispense with the enquiry under Sec. 5-A he urgency clause has been invoked mechanically and without the Government applying its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. All these contentions have been disputed by the learned Advocate General, who appeared for the Government, who has placed the entire record before me.

(2.) With respect to the first contention, I must say the record conta. ins material to show that the substance of the notification was published in the locality. Mr. S. Venkata Reddy, however, sought to contend that the endorsement of local publication is obtained by the authorities after the filing of the writ petition and, in support of that contention, he wanted to rely upon the transcript of the allegad tape-recorded conversation between The Village Munsif and the Tahsildar which, according to the learned counsel, proves that the said endorsement was obtained after the filing of the writ petition, with an ante-data. On behelf of the respondents, however, affidavits have been filed sworn to both by the Tahsildar, as well as by the Village Munsif, denying tho said averments. The petitioners, indeed, have notified the tape containing the alleged conversation. Moreover, this dis. puted fact cannot be gone into, or adjudicated in this writ petition because even if the tape is filed, further questions with regard to the identity of the voice, and as to who taped the said conversation and how. will arise All these complicated facts cannot be investigated in this writ petition. I must, therefore, proceed on the footing that the evidence of the local publication is true. Accordingly the first contention is rejected.

(3.) I also see no substance in the second contention of the learned counsel. It is true that the acquisition is beingmade for the 3rd respondent, viz. Academy of General and Technical Education, Vijayawada, which fs.a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and which fails within the definition of Company" contained in the Act. But it is well settled by now every acquisition for the benefit of a Company need not necessarily be only in accordance with the provisions of part VI. Even for a Company, the acquisition can be made following the procedure applicable in the case of acquisition for a public purpose. In this case, the notification says that the acquisition is "for a public purpose, to wit, for construction of Siddhartha Engineering College". The record also discloses that the Government has contributed a sum of Rs.100/- towards the said acquisition. If so, I do not find any irregularity in the notification Issued and the declaration made.