K GANAPATHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are 25 in number. Except petitioner Nos.15, 16 and 17, all other petitioners claim to be small farmers owning small extents of land ranging between Ac.0-10 gts. and Ac.2-24 gts. in Attapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, either on the strength of pattas or possession or purchase. They further claim that they constructed houses in the said lands and are living therein, and that there are nearly about 500 houses in the said area. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1-District Collector, issued notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') seeking to acquire the lands mentioned therein, for a public purpose, namely for construction of New Sewerage Treatment Plants (STPs) 25 MLD Capacity, and further dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. It is this notification, which the petitioners seek to challenge in this writ petition on various grounds.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as "HMWS & SB").

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, except petitioner Nos. 15, 16 and 17 are small farmers, and this is evident from the extent of lands which they are in their possession, and as such, the land in their possession and occupation could not have been acquired by respondent No.1 under the notification, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, for the purpose of construction of New STPs 25 MLD Capacity, and at any rate, without causing public notice of the substance of the notification, which is mandatory. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Narinderjit Singh v. State of U.P. State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak and Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India. He submitted that respondent No.1 has no authority or power to acquire the lands under the Act. He submits that there being no urgency to acquire the lands, respondent No.1 could not have dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A by invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act, and more so when the lands sought to be acquired are situated in a municipal area. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. v. Chalasani Vijaya Lakshmi and Damera Seshagiri Rao v. Govt. of A.P. and of a learned single Judge of this Court in N. Anjaneyulu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. He further submitted that when alternative lands in an extent of Ac.40-00 belonging to the Government and an extent of Ac.6-12 gts. belonging to private persons, was available on the northern side in the village, the action of respondent No.1 in seeking to acquire the wet lands of the petitioners in which they are cultivating various crops, is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that if the impugned notification is allowed to be sustained, which has been issued without non-application of mind, near about 500 families would lose their shelter and livelihood. He further submitted that the substance of the draft notification and draft declaration were not published on the Notice Board of the Gram Panchayat, Attapur as by the date they were directed to be published, Attapur Gram Panchayat stood merged with Rajendranagar Municipality, and as such, because of this procedural infirmity, the impugned notification cannot be sustained, and thus prayed that the writ petition be allowed.