MALLADI KRISHNA MOHAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 10652 of 1995 was heard on 15-7-2003 and reserved for consideration. The other writ petition being W.P. No. 10651 of 1995 was heard on 29-7-2003 and 6-8-2003. As most of the grounds urged in support of the writ petitions are similar and as both the writ petitions challenge the self-same notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act"), both the matters are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in these writ petitions challenge the notification issued by the District Collector, Krishna District, the first respondent herein, under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act published in the Gazette on 24-4-1995 and in the Vijayawada edition of Telugu daily newspaper Andhra Jyothi on 11-5-1995. By the said notification, the first respondent proposed to acquire, among other, land admeasuring Acs.15.59 cents in Sy.No.60/2 and land admeasuring Acs.17.75 cents in Sy.Nos.61 and 63 of Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District allegedly belonging to the petitioners. With a view to expand Auto Nagar, respondents acquired about Acs. 115.00 in Kanuru Village of Krishna District. The notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 244-1995 and was published in the local newspapers on 10-5-1995, 11-5-1995 and 12-5-1995. The enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6 was made and published in the A.P. Gazette on 28-4-1995 which was also published in the local newspapers on 20-5-1995 and 23-5-1995. Award was passed for major extent of land on 23-5-1996 and possession of the land was taken by respondents 1 and 2 on 14-8-1996. However, by reason of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.N0.13091 of 1995, dated 30-5-1995, the petitioners were not dispossessed from the land. The notification under Section 4(1) was subject-matter of challenge in the earlier writ petitions as well.

(3.) In the affidavit filed by the first petitioner on behalf of the other petitioners in W.P. No. 10652 of 1995, it is alleged as under. The land in question is earmarked for residential purpose in the master plan and only an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents is earmarked for industrial purpose. At the instance of the third respondent namely, Automobile Technicians Association, land admeasuring Acs. 148.34 cents was sought to be acquired by A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (APIIC) for extension of automobile workshop/Auto Nagar. The respondents, however, excluded the land of an extent of Acs.39.18 cents. The petitioners and others filed W.P.No.2370 of 1988 and batch before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act is vitiated for the reason that it was issued after expiry of two years. The matter was carried to the Division Bench. By judgment reported as A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation v. Ch. Vijaya Lakshmi, 1992 (3) ALT 709 (D.B.), the Division Bench held that acquisition proceedings lapsed by operation of Section 11 -A of the Act. Immediately thereafter, the third respondent Association made a representation on 20-12-1992 to the Government to arrange acquisition of land to establish small scale units in an extent of Acs. 153.53 cents. It is also alleged that the third respondent suggested petitioners' land which is earmarked for residential purpose. The respondents sought to acquire the land earmarked for residential purpose in the master plan excluding the land meant for industrial purpose. The acquisition proceedings lapsed and acquisition sought to be made is mala fide to deprive the petitioners' of their property. The first respondent sought to acquire the petitioners' land though there is no need to acquire the same and that the land cannot be used for industrial purpose.