BIJANBES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Writ Appeals are directed against the orders dated 4-11-2004 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 19579, 19539, 19540 and 19628 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge wherein the challenge was to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dt. 10-7-2002 for acquisition of Ac. 2.04 gts., Ac.1.10 gts., 16.29 gts. and Ac. 0.13 gts., respectively, of land belonging to the appellant-petitioners. The total extent of the land sought to be acquired under the said notification was Ac. 80.35guntas. Inasmuch as the notification under challenge in all these appeals is one and the same, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by common judgment.

(2.) The genesis leading to the filing of these cases, in nutshell, is as follows: The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act") was issued proposing to acquire an extent of Ac. 80.35 of land including the land belonging to the appellant-petitioners situated at Nanakramguda village, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of development of new projects by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (for short A.P.I.I.C.), Hyderabad and urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked.

(3.) The said notification has been challenged by various persons including the appellant-petitioners in various Writ Petitions. The writ petitions covered by these appeals were disposed of by a learned Single Judge following the orders dated: 25-4-2003 passed in W.P.No.21712 of 2002 wherein the very notification which was challenged in the present writ petitions was challenged. In the said writ petition learned Single Judge held that the acquisition notification itself states, a statement buttressed by the assertions in the counter-affidavit, that the acquisition is intended for a public purpose, to wit, the extension of the Financial District and the establishment of an information technology park and its infrastructural facilities. The learned Single Judge further held that the acquisition is for the purpose of enabling the activities of The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, an instrumentality of State which is engaged in the development of special projects, like Hardware park, Financial District, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Hi-tech city project etc. and the said purpose is demonstrably a public purpose. The learned Single Judge also held that the availability of alternative lands as pleaded by the petitioners is also not correct as the lands are urged to be not contiguous to the existing developed areas and therefore do not constitute alternative available lands. Ultimately, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to issue notice for an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to the persons whose lands are to be acquired including the petitioners therein and to take appropriate further steps after such enquiry on the ground that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be jettisoned on jejune grounds of irrational and unsubstantiated urgency, as no such urgency was demonstrated before the Court by the respondents. However, the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The said order of the learned Single JudgeinW.P.No.21712of 2002 was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court.