A. SATYANARAYANA RAO Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the order of our learned brother, Raghuvir, J. dismissing Writ Petition No. 9372 of 1981 in which the petitioners, three in number challenged the notification of the District Collector, Karimnagar under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the District Gazette dated 2 -12 -1981 proposing to acquire the land of the extent of 4 acres, 16 guntas in survey Nos. 378, 380/A, 380/B, 381 and 390 of Eldurthi village in Jagtial Taluk. The acquisition was being made for the purpose of providing house sites to Harijans and Backward classes of the village. Earlier, the lands in two Survey Nos. 378/A and 378 -B belonging to petitioners 1 and 2 were notified to be acquired, but that was challenged in W.P. 497/81 by the said petitioners and the writ petition was allowed on 20 -10 -1981 quashing the said notification on some technical ground.

(2.) THE three petitioners now challenged the acquisition of the lands notified on 2 -12 -1981 firstly, on the ground that there was extensive land of the Government in Survey No. 106 and therefore, there was no need to acquire the lands of the petitioners. But, it is stated that out of the land in Survey No. 106 belonging to the Government, nearly 40 acres have already been allotted to the Harijans and the rest of the land is a hillock and not suitable for house sites. Therefore, this contention that other Government land was available was untenable and was rejected by the learned single Judge.

(3.) THE learned Judge also found that possession of the lands was taken over on 27 -1 -1982 and the lands were sub -divided into plots on 28 -1 -1982 and were delivered to the beneficiaries for construction purposes. Following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petn. No. 4793 of 1977 dated 15 -2 -1979 and the decision in Writ Appeal No. 339 of 1982 dated 14 -4 -1982, the learned Judge held that as the lands were taken possession of and sub -divided and delivered to the beneficiaries third party rights had intervened, that the aforesaid decisions applied to the facts of the case and therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to challenge the notification for acquisition of the lands in question.