K BALA BAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the notification dated 9-3-2002 and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of the land in accordance with the notification dated 7-12-1998 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or if necessary by issuing a fresh notification.

(2.) The facts that lead to the filing of the present writ petition are that the land of the petitioners to an extent of 2,423.09 sq. yards situate in survey numbers T.S. Nos 1/2 and 2/2 of Sultanbagh revenue village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District was sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing a permanent drainage. The object for acquiring the land and construction of drain, is that the rain water nala (stream) has been passing through the said survey number and further there was pacca (permanent) masonry drainage constructed on the eastern and western sides and only the present land is kept open, as it belongs to the petitioners and that since said nala affects the inhabitants on both the sides of the subject land by breeding mosquitoes, it was identified as hazardous to the inhabitants of the locality. It appears that the people of the locality made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of A.P. and pursuant to the said representation, it is stated that the Hon'ble Chief Minister visited the spot and directed the respondents to take steps for acquisition of the land and construct permanent drainage. In the writ affidavit it is stated that consequent upon of the said instructions of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 7-12-1998 followed by a further notification under Section 5-A of the Act, dispensing with the enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act, thereby enabling the authorities to proceed with the notification under Section 6 of the Act and also to take possession of the land immediately under Section 17 (4) of the Act without even passing award. It also appears that the 2nd respondent through its Executive Engineer had requested the petitioners to permit the contractor to start the work in view of the urgency, through letter dated 2-5-1998. It is the averment of the petitioners that even the respondents 2 and 3 have taken possession of the land from the petitioners and commenced the work. While so, the people of the locality through a society, approached this Court by way of public interest litigation in W.P. No.12426/1999 seeking expeditious construction of the pucca drain. It appears that to the said writ petition, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the possession of the land had already been taken and the acquisition proceedings have already been commenced and the award money was also been deposited. It is stated in the writ affidavit that this Court taking into account the statements made in the counter-affidavit, disposed of the writ petition on 4-8-1999 holding that no further order need be passed. It appears that almost simultaneously the petitioners herein filed another writ petition in W.P. No.20481/1999 seeking expeditious acquisition of the land. A learned single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petition observed in the penultimate paragraph as under:

(3.) However, the Government challenged the above judgment of the single Judge in W.A. No.1172/2000 and the Division Bench after elaborately considering all the issues, modified the order of the learned single Judge as under: