MOPARTHI KOTESWARA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, by this writ petition, seek writ of mandamus to declare the Notification issued by the first respondent- District Collector, Guntur under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act') vide proceedings No.2252/2004- Gl, dated 18-10-2004, proposing to acquire the land of Sri Seetha Rama Swamy vari Temple, Takkellapadu Village, Peddakakani Mandal, Guntur District (for short "the Temple') in an extent of Ac.10-77 cents comprising Ac. 5-47 cents in Sy. No.22-2 cents and Ac. 5-30 cents in Sy. No.27-1 of Takkellapadu Village, as illegal and arbitrary, and violative of Appendix-IV of the Act, and also Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Endowments Act').

(2.) The petitioners claim to be landless poor and statutory tenants of the Temple in respect of the property under acquisition since the time of their forefathers. According to them, the impugned notification proposing to acquire the land in question for allotting house sites to the weaker sections has taken away the benefits accrued to them by virtue of Section 82 of the Act. They state that they being statutory tenants, have exercised option to purchase the said land as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Endowments Act, and in pursuance thereof the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur conducted enquiry and by his proceedings Rc.No.A5/6112/2003, dated 22-6-2003 and 22-8-2003, declared some of them as landless poor and the cases of others are under consideration, and in fact they were all declared as landless poor by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddakakani Mandal and Village Secretary of Takkellapadu Village. They state that the impugned notification is illegal, inasmuch as the District Welfare Officer has not decided any congestion in Takkellapadu Village to acquire the land, as required by the provisions of Appendix-IV of the Act, and in fact no persons in the village require house sites. They also state that inasmuch as the Apex Court in State of A.P. and others v. Nallamilli Kami Ready and others, 2001 (6) ALD 95 (SC) = 2001 (7) SCC 708, held that the tenants under the Endowments Act form a different class, and they as statutory tenants, are entitled to be extended the benefits of Section 82 of the Endowments Act. It is stated that the impugned notification has been issued at the instance of local rival political group without there being any necessity of acquisition, to deprive the petitioners of their livelihood, which is illegal.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 2005(1) FR-F-23