RACHAMSETTI NAGESWAR RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be owners of agricultural lands comprised in S.Nos.372/1A, 372/2 and 372/3A admeasuring about Acs.3.83. First respondent herein issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), dt.29.8.1994, which was published in Guntur District Gazette dt.31.8.1994, and in the local newspapers on 13.8.1994. Said Notification is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, raised four contentions. He submits that though in the earlier litigation a direction was issued to conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, same was not conducted by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act, and the enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer as admitted in the counter affidavit. Secondly he would contend that there is sufficient alternative land available and the expenditure to the exchequer by acquiring fertile land of petitioners can be avoided if alternative land is utilized for providing house sites to weaker sections. Thirdly, the beneficiaries, for whom the land is being acquired, are having houses or house sites and therefore the acquisition is mala fide.Lastly he would contend that balance of petitioners' land after acquisition would be rendered useless as the land is being acquired in such a manner that there would not be any access to the remaining land. In the counter affidavit filed it is admitted that the land was sought to be acquired for providing house sites to 48 individuals belonging to Padmasali caste. After this Court initially disposed of earlier writ petitions, the petitioners filed their objections and enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli, who submitted report as well as proposals to the District Collector who published declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act in the Gazette dt.10.10.1995. It is also stated that first petitioner has got an extent of Acs.7.39 and the allegation that he sold away the land is not correct. It is emphatically stated that Mandal Revenue Officer is competent to conduct enquiry under Section 5A by reason of delegations of powers by the Government. Section 5A of the Act in its application to State of Andhra Pradesh reads as under:

(3.) The term "Collector" as defined by Section 3 (c) of the Act means 'the Collector of a District, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act'. Further Section 3A of the Act as inserted by A.P.Amendment Act No.22 of 1976 empowers the Government to delegate its powers and functions to the District Collector. The delegation of powers to District Collector under Section 3A is altogether different from the power conferred by Section 3(c) itself on the Government to specifically authorise/appoint any officer to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act.