M SURYA RAO Vs. DIST COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who claims to be cultivating tenant of land in an extent of Ac.1-11 cents, belonging to respondent No.4-Temple, situated in Sy.No.143/3, Kandregula Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, has filed this writ petition praying for the following relief: To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide Ref. No.G2/5825/2003, dated 20-9-2003 for acquiring the land to an extent of Ac.1-11 cents belonging to respondent No.4-Devasthanam situated in Sy.No.143/3 (wrongly mentioned in notification as Sy.No.194/2) Kandregula Village, Padapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, and quash the same as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the instructions issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.444, dated 19-9-1995 and the subsequent G.Os. and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a cultivating tenant of land in an extent of Ac.1-11 cents in Sy.No.143/3, Kandregula Village, Padapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to respondent No.4-Devasthanam, for the last more than 30 years, on periodical leases, and presently he is holding a lease valid upto 2004-05 and is paying the rents regularly. The petitioners states that being a small farmer, he applied to the authorities under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the Endowments Act) for alienation of the land, which is under cultivation, in his favour. He is raising crops in the land, and presently there is standing crop. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1-District Collector, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) on 20-9-2003 for acquisition of the land in his possession by wrongly mentioning the survey numbers as 194/2. The petitioner submits that the notification issued by respondent No.1 runs contrary to the statutory directions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.444, Rev. Endowments-II Department, dated 19-9-1995, wherein procedure for acquisition of the lands belonging to the Charitable and Endowments Institutions, is prescribed. The petitioner states that any acquisition of land by respondent No.1 shall only be subject to the provisions of Section 80 of the Endowments Act, which provides for calling for objections from persons interested in the land and obtaining permission from the Commissioner of Endowments. The petitioner states that inasmuch as before issuance of notification, respondent No.1 had neither called for objections nor obtained permission from the Commissioner of Endowments, the notification cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4-Devasthanam. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a small farmer and a cultivating tenant of respondent No.4 in an extent of Ac.1-11 cents in Sy.No.143/3, Kandregula Village, Padapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, for the last more than 30 years and presently, is holding a lease, which is valid upto 2004-05, and while so, respondent No.1 issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, seeking to acquire the land under his cultivation by wrongly mentioning the survey number as 194/2, which is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel submits that the impugned Notification issued by respondent No.1 is vague, for it neither furnishes the correct particulars nor mentions the correct survey number in relation to the land in possession of the petitioner, and therefore, cannot be sustained. In support of his contention that a vague notification vitiates the very acquisition process itself, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the apex court in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd Shafi ((1992) 2 SCC 168).