GOPAL INNANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner owns certain extents of lands within the Hyderabad Urban agglomeration covered by the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Out of those lands, Ac. 9-28 guntas situate in S.No. 122 of Bhaloolkhanguda, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, was found to be excess vacant land. Such excess land was liable to be surrendered to the Government for being disposed of by the Government according to the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Of those purposes, the provision of house sites to weaker sections of the society is very prominent. But this Ac. 9-28 cents falls within a recreational zone as per the Master Plan prepared or deemed to have been prepared under the A.P. Urban Development Act. Now the petitioner had applied to the State Government under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for grant of exemption of these lands from the operation of the above Act. The Andhra Pradesh Government in G.O.Ms. No. 152 dated 4-2-82 granted exemption to these Ac. 9-82 guntas of land from the operation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Exemption was granted subject to the condition that the said land should be utilised only for the purpose of construction of a drive-in-theatre and an ordinary theatre. It is a subject of the exemption that the project should be completed within a period of three years from the date of the grant of exemption. Strangely, the same piece of land admeasuring Ac. 9-28 guntas was earlier sought to be acquired by the Government, paying market value, for providing house-sites to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Weaker Sections. For that purpose the Government published a Gazette publication under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, dated 21st January 1982. The present writ petition had been filed challenging the validity of the Notification published under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. It may be mentioned that Section 5-A inquiry had been dispensed with under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the substance of Section 4 (1) Notification had been locally published only on 17th February, 1982, that is to say, some twenty-seven days after the Gazette Notification.

(2.) Now the petitioner has challenged the Section 4 (1) Notification on several grounds. The first ground is that the Government had acted mala fide in issuing that notification. He says that the Government while granting him exemption in one breath had issues these acquisition proceedings for acquiring the same land in another breath. It is also argued that the acquisition proceedings are bad for the reason that they are not for a public purpose. The further contention is that the local publication which was made about twenty seven days after the date of the Gazette publication had vitiated the entire acquisition proceedings.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent-Government the District Social Welfare Officer, Hyderabad, had denied the charge of mala fides. On the other hand, in his counter filed in this case in opposition to the writ petition, he had charged the writ petitioner with acts of suppressing the real facts from the notice of the Government and misguiding the Collector, Hyderabad to recommend the land for exemption. Para 3 of the counter-affidavit reads thus: "the petitioner has intentionally and with a view to avoid acquisition approached the Collector, Hyderabad, obtained recommendation to exempt the land as already been declared as surplus by the Special Officer, Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette No. 92 dated 17-2-80.