DATLA SREERAMACHANDRA RAJU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole but substantial question that arises in this case is whether G.O.Ms.No.472 (Revenue), dated 22.2.1938 is mandatory and non-compliance of the same whether would vitiate the acquisition proceedings initiated under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The undisputed facts ares- The two petitioners herein are the owner of Survey Numbers 129/2-B comprising Acs.2-76 cents and 136/3 comprising Acs.2- 24 cents. They were acquired for the labouring classes to be assigned as house sites. S.4(1) notification as well as Sec.6 declaration have been published and S.5-A has been dispensed with. A list of beneficiaries for whose benefit the house sites have been acquired has not been published along with either 4(1) notification or any notice issued thereunder; nor under S.5-A , since S.5-A itself has been dispensed with. The petitioners were, however, served notices under S.9(3) and S. 10 oi the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) In this set of circumstances, the contentions inter-alia of the petitioner are that they are small farmers as they own the extent stated above which is under acquisition and more importantly, there has been non compliance of the provisions made in G.O.Ms.472, dt.22.2.1938 under which it is obligatory for the respondents to give names of the members to whom the assignment of the said land is infended, in the notice issued under S.4(1) and Sec. 5-A together with the extents proposed to be given to each. Such information of notifying the same must also be furnished while submitting the draft declaration under S.6 of the Act.