I PRAVEEN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for acquisition of land in different survey numbers of Vattinagulapally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District are challenged. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 16.3.2005. It was mentioned that the land is needed for the public purpose of establishment of IT Park and other related projects by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation'). In the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, objection was raised to the acquisition on several grounds. The principal ground urged by the petitioners was that the Government of A.P. in the Municipal Administration Department issued G.O. Ms. No. 111 dated 8.3.1996 in respect of the catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar Lakes, prohibiting development of any kind whatever within the radius of 10 kilo meters from the said lakes. It was urged that Vattinagulapalli Village comes within the radius of 10 kilo meters from the lakes and that in the annexure appended to the G.O., the name of the village was mentioned. It was also pleaded that in the master plan for the City of Hyderabad prepared by the then Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, a Special Conservation Zone was created covering this area and establishment of any industry, much less IT Industry is prohibited. However, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 5.11.2005. The petitioners contend that on coming to know that the area proposed to be acquired is covered by G.O. Ms. No. 111, the then Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department with a request to drop the proposal to acquire the land and that such a request had in fact been acceded to. The petitioners contend that at a time, when the proceedings under the Act were about to be withdrawn, the A.P. Housing Board (for short the Board') intervened and the acquisition was continued for the benefit and purpose of the Board and not for the Corporation. With this and other grounds, the petitioners challenge the proceedings.

(2.) The contest to the writ petitions is mainly by the Corporation. In the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf, it is stated that every step in the matter is taken strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. After the matter was heard at some length, this Court required the Corporation to make its stand clear on the various submissions made by the petitioners, in particular the alleged intervention of the Board, in the proceedings. In the additional counter-affidavit filed by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, it was admitted that the proceedings were continued on the insistence by and for its benefit.

(3.) The arguments on behalf of the writ petitioners are advanced by Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel, Sri Raghu Veera Reddy, Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Sri M.V. Durga Prasad and other learned Counsel on record. According to them, the acquisition is untenable, since not only establishment of industries but also the ordinary construction activity is prohibited in the area covered by G.O. Ms. No. 111, dated 8.3.1996. They submit that being the creatures under the Statutes, the Corporation and the Board are expected to respect the command under the G.O., but instead, they have become instrumental in flouting it Learned Counsel submits that the said G.O. was issued on the directions from this Court, for preservation of the historical lakes, and the Urban Development Authority also has prepared the master plan in accordance with that, by creating special conservation zone.