KALTAMREDDI RADHAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. DIST COLLECTOR NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek the quashing of a land acquisition notification issued by the District Collector Nellore, on 10-2-1976 under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners for purpose of providing house- sites, to the Harijans of Edagalli village of Nellore District. The District Collector Nellore, by means of the aforesaid notification had not merely notified his intention to acquire the aforesaid lands but had also dispensed with the inquiry contemplated normally to be held under Section 5-A of the said Act. The petitioners' challenge is to the validity of the entire notification including that part of it dispensing with the inquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Act.

(2.) It la beyond doubt that acquisition of land for providing house-sites for construction of houses for Harijans falls under the descrip tion ofpublic purpose." It is equally clear that the State has power to acquire private lands for public purpose. Now the power of the State to acquire lands for public purpose is embodied in and regulated by the provisions of our LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 of 1894 as amended from time to time. As a piece of existing law, the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 hitherto enjoyed certain amount of Constitutional immunity but witn the details of which we are not presently concerned. The only question which this Court should examine in this case is whether the State power of eminent domain embodied in the aforesaid Act is exercised by the District Collector, Nellore in this case in accordance with the provisions of that Statute.

(3.) The petitioners challenge the proposed acquisition on two grounds. Firstly they say, that petitioners 3 to 9 are small and marginal farmers who are entirely dependent for their existence upon the cultivation of small extents of lands and the acquisition of these lands under these impugned proceedings would uproot them and their families rendering them destitute. The petitioners' contention is that excepting in the rare cases of absolute necessity the State is without power to use its powers of eminent domain to bring about these catastrophic consequences on some of its citizens. The petitioners say that there are large extents of Government poramboke lands available in the village for being used as house-sites for the Harijans and that therefore, the afore-mentioned catastrophic res. ults should have been avoided by the State by using those Government poramboke lands. They argue that when such large chunks of lands are available it would be an unreasonable exercise of statutory power for the Government to deprive the petitioners of their small holdings rendering them destitute. The petitioners also challenge, the action of the District Collector dispensing with the statutory inquiry contemplated normally to be held under Section 5-A of the Act, on the ground that dispensing with the inquiry contemplated to be held under Section 5- A of the Act. was done in this'case by the Collector mechanically and without applying his mind. The patitioners a gue that Section 5 A inquiry is based upon a basic and fundamental principle that holds no right to private property shall be affected except in accordance with the principles of natural justice. They, therefore, argue that such a principle can only be dispensed with in cases of real and genuine urgency and not as a matter of mechanical and official routine.