SRI SEETHARAMA SWAMY TEMPLE, REP. BY MANAGING TRUSTEE AND CHAIRMAN, SRI P. VENKATESWAR RAO Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are connected and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Smt. N. Indrani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 19883 of 2004, Sri Sitharam Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No. 21803 of 2004 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the official respondents in both the cases.

(2.) PETITIONER in W.P. No. 19883 of 2004 is a Temple, viz., Sri Seetharama Swamy Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'Temple') situated in Suryaraopet locality of Kakinada Town, East Godavari District. Petitioners in W.P. No. 21803 of 2004 claim to be the lessees of the said Temple. In both the writ petitions challenge is to the draft notification Ref. No. G2/8828/2003 dated 19.01.2004 published in the East Godavari District Gazette Extraordinary, dated 20.01.2004. issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') proposing to acquire the temple's land for providing house sites to weaker section people.

(3.) THE impugned notification is assailed on the substantive ground that there is no justification for dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. According to the petitioners, the purpose, viz., provision for house sites, does not involve any urgency warranting invocation of Section 17(4). They plead that the subject land is not fit for house sites since it is a wet land and is far away from the village. They state that there are other Government poramboke lands adjacent to the village, which are more convenient and fit for the notified purpose. They further plead that there is no justification in acquiring the endowment land, which has been endowed for the purpose of maintenance of the Temple, and that the proposal to acquire these lands are contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 456, date 29.09.1995. Thus according to the petitioners the impugned proposal is not sustainable.