K VALLI KUMARI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, whose property also is notified for acquisition, along with the properties of others, for implementation of the Master Plan at Tirumala, filed this petition questioning the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act).

(2.) The admitted facts are, petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.3/4, in T.S.No.3/14 and 3/15, Ward No.4, Block- B, West Mada Street, Tirumala, whereat she is running a Lodge. Notification dated 17.4.2003 proposing to acquire the aforesaid property of the petitioner and other properties, for implementation of the Master Plan, under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published in newspapers on 20.5.2003. During enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, petitioner and others submitted their objections on 4-7-2003. Overruling the objections, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. Questioning the acquisition and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, petitioner filed W.P. No.1337 of 2004 in this Court on the ground that she was not given an opportunity of being heard. That petition and another W.P. No. 1155 of 2004, filed by other owners of some other properties sought to be acquired, were partly allowed on 29-1-2004 by a common order, setting aside the notification dated 16-11-2003 issued under Section 6 of the Act, with a direction to the petitioner and the petitioners in W.P. No. 1155 of 2004 to appear before the first respondent on 9-2-2004 and file their objections and adduce their evidence in support of the objections, if any, on that date itself, and directed the first respondent to submit his report to the Government without adjourning the case. As per those directions, petitioner appeared before the first respondent and gave evidence. First respondent sent his report along with the record to the Government through the Collector and the Government overruling the objections of the petitioner approved the declaration under Section 6 of the Act that the above property of the petitioner along with the properties of others mentioned therein are required for acquisition, for the public purpose of implementing the Master Plan, West Mada Street and for providing better amenities to visiting pilgrims at Tirumala, etc.

(3.) The main contention of Sri Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that since the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act shows that properties mentioned therein are proposed to be acquired for implementation of Master Plan, and since the notification under Section 6 of the Act,impugned in this petition states that the acquisition is for West Mada Street, implementation of Master Plan, etc., and since in the earlier notice issued to the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act it is stated that the purpose of acquisition of the petitioner's property is for Maha Prakaram and widening of T.K. Street, which is faraway from the property of the petitioner, and since construction of Maha Prakaram is doubtful, in view of the pendency of the public interest litigation writ petitions before a Division Bench of this Court, it is easy to see that the proceedings to acquire the property of the petitioner are not bona fide and that petitioner is targeted to be thrown out of that place, as the property immediately next to the property of the petitioner, in the same street, belonging to Karnataka Government is not touched for the alleged road widening of the West Mada Street. It is his contention that since first respondent was placed in-charge of the Office of the Estate Officer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (T.T.D.), who also looks after the land acquisition for T.T.D., the beneficiary, his report to the Government is but a biased report, and so the notification issued on such biased report is liable to be quashed.