CHATAPALLI NADIPI SUBBARAYUDU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating and leading to the notification bearing RC.No.L89/96 dt.25/3/96 issued by the 1st respondent under sec-4(1) of the land acquisition act published in the Kurnool district gazette, extra ordinary dt. 30/3/96 relating to Ac.1.30 cents in Kurnool district and issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus under art. 226 of the constitution of India and declare the aforesaid acquisition proceedings of the petitioners land as illegal and void.)

(2.) Chatapalli Nadipi Subbarayudu, the Writ Petitioner, filed the present writ petition praying for calling of records relating to the notification bearing RC.No.L/89/96 dated 258-03-1996 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Kurnool District Gazette Extraordinary dated 30-03-1996 relating to Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.Nos.517/1C, 517/2E & 516 of A. Koduru Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District and to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to declare the aforesaid acquisition proceedings of the petitioners land as illegal and void and pass such other appropriate orders.

(3.) Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the very invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as Act for the purpose of convenience) is unsustainable. The learned Counsel also pointed out that invoking urgency clause is not an empty formality and some material should be there before the competent authority who should satisfy himself relating to the invocation of the urgency clause before invoking the provisions of the Section 17 of the Act. The Counsel also would submit that by virtue of invocation of the urgency clause, the provisions of Section 5-A would not apply to the acquisition proceedings. The learned Counsel also pointed out that even otherwise the respondents have not deposited 80% of the compensation before taking possession of the land and under the present acquisition no such deposit had been made so far. The Counsel also had pointed out that the possession of the land also was not taken within 90 days as per Section 17(5) (b) of the Act as amended by A.P. Act of 1983. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that it this land is not at all suitable for providing house sites and there are other convenient lands and also Government lands within the near vicinity. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned Counsel also would submit that the petitioner is a small farmer and his livelihood would be affected by the proposed action. The Counsel also had pointed out that this Court made an order of status quo while ordering notice before admission on 21-03-1997.