B NARSIMLU Vs. DIRECT COLLECTOR MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners pray for quashing of notification under Section 4 dated 10.4.2003 and other consequential proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1923 insofar as they relate to Sy.No.335 of Zaheerabad village and Mandal, Medak as violative of mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act and objects of A.P. Boodan and Gramdan Act, 1965 and Rules made there under.

(2.) The case of the petitioners in brief is : 4th respondent-Secretary, A.P. Boodan Yagna Board, Hyderabad allotted Ac.5-00 cents each to the petitioners in S.No.335 of Zaheerbad after collecting Rs.1,750/- each. The petitioners made the land fit for cultivation by putting their hard work and labour. 4th respondent addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of pattas in prescribed form in favour of the petitioners as required under Rule 9 of A.P. Boodan and Gramdan Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). The Government of Andhra Pradesh through Memo dated 25.2.1983 issued instructions to the revenue authorities to issue D-Form pattas as per the allotment made by 4th respondent. 3rd respondent-A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 3rd respondent) submitted proposals to acquire land at Zaheerabad for the benefit of 5th respondent-M/s. Frigerio Conserve Allane Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company). The District Collector, Medak i.e. 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to L.A.Act) and published notification under Section 4(1) of L.AAct. The said notification came to be published in Deccan Chronicle on 6.4.2003. 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (Industries), Hyderabad was appointed as LAO and enquiry under Section 5A of the L.AAct was dispensed with by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of L.A. Act. The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the notification issued under Section 4(1) and dispensation of Enquiry under Section 5A by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the L.A.Act. It is the contention of the petitioners that the purpose for which their lands are proposed to be acquired is not for public purpose and the alleged purpose is contrary to the aims and objectives of Mahatma Gandhi and Acharya Vinobha Bhave. It is the further contention of the petitioners that since the acquisition is for private company, procedure prescribed under Part VII of the L.A. Act is required to be followed and since the said procedure is not followed, acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. Yet another contention has been raised that invocation of urgency clause in the circumstances of the case is wholly unwarranted and thereby dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A is not sustainable.

(3.) M/s.Frigerio Conserve Allane Limited, the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings has come on record as 5th respondent by an order dated 29.7.2005 passed in WPMP No.21588 of 2004.