KASALA PAPA NAIDU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition tine notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the consequential notices issued under Sec.9(3) and 10 of the Act have been challenged. The notification pertains to acquisition of land of Ac.0-33 cents situate in S.No.20/5B and S.No.20/8B2 of Veerakaverirajapuram village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District out of which the petitioner has Ac.0-28 cents of land in the latter Survey number. The said notification was published in the District Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 25-2-1994. The purpose of acquisition as mentioned in the said Notification was for formation of road to the burial ground and main road. Invoking the provision under sub-sec. (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the Collector dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A. On the same day, the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published. The publication in the news papers was made on 18-3-1994. In that notification, the public purpose of acquisition of land was said to be for the benefit of weaker sections. It is not mentioned therein that the strip of land was required for formation of road leading to the burial ground.

(2.) The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to notify the land under Secs.4 and 6 of the Act as he does not come within the defini tion of "appropria te Government". The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on the notification issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms. 1888 Revenue, dated 31-12-1984 under which the District Collectors were conferred with the powers under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17(4) of the Act for the purpose, inter alia, of provision of pathways to the burial grounds. This notification was issued under Section 3-A of the Land Acquisition Act under which the State Government has been empowered to delegate the power conferred on it under the Act by means of a notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. It is not in dispute that the said G.O. was published in the Gazette. Hence the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails.

(3.) The second objection of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a small farmer and therefore the land in question cannot be acquired. Even this contention cannot be accep ted for the reason that the acquisition is not for providing house sites to weaker sections and the executive instructions issued by the Government with regard to acquisition of lands of small farmers do not apply.