LAWS(APH)-1991-11-44

A RAJI REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On November 08, 1991
AMBATI RAJI REDDI Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed for the issue of writ of mandamus declaring that the acquisition of wet land of Acs. 4-48 cents covered by Survey No. 72/2 and ac. 1-88 cents covered by Survey No. 73/1B of Jammulapalli village in Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari district in pursuance of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is illegal, invalid and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from taking any steps regarding the acquisition of the said property in pursuance of the said notification.

(2.) The material facts which are not in dispute are the following: Respondents 4 and 5 are the owners of Acs. 4-48 cents covered by Survey No. 72/2 while respondents No. 6 is the owner of Ac. 1-88 cents covered by S.No. 73/1B of Jammulapalli village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari district. While petitioners 1 to 4 are tenants in respect of Ac. 1-88 cents covered by S.No. 73/1B, petitioners 5 and 6 are the tenants regarding Ac. 4-48 cents covered by S.No. 72/2. It is also not in dispute that petitioners 1 to 6 have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands above stated since a long time as cultivating tenants. While so, the first respondent Collector, East Godavari District Kakinada got issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the above two extents of land for construction of houses to weaker sections namely respondents 7 to 134 and aggrieved by the same the petitioners have come up with this writ petition to quash Sec. 4(1) notification issued under the Act.

(3.) Before proceeding further it is to be noted that respondents 4 to 6 who are the owners of the land in question have filed W.P.No. 13513 of 1983 questioning the validity of the self-same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was disposed of as per orders dated 25-2-1986 without deciding the case on merits and consequently that wirt petition has no bearing on the issue that is to be considered in this writ petition.