GOLI PADMARAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning, the Notification dated 30-9-1994 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying the land of the petitioners, for the purpose of developing industrial area, and, the consequential declaration published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and, the award dated 3.10.1996 passed by the 6th respondent.

(2.) The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited has sent a requisition to the Collector, East Godavari District, for acquisition of land, to an extent of Ac.623-78 cents in Rayabhupalapatnam Village, for the purpose of developing industrial area. On such requisition after deleting the extents of land covered by poramboke, an extent of Ac.573-79 cents was identified for acquisition, and, the same was divided into four blocks for administrative convenience. The land owned by the petitioners in Sy.Nos.447/3, 448/1, 448/2, 447/1 and 437/A, admeasuring Ac.17.92 cents, covered by Block-IV, is notified vide 4(1) Notification, dated 30-9-1994, issued by the District Collector. In the said notification, total extent of Ac. 126.55 cents of land was notified for public purpose, namely, to wit for establishment of Industrial Development area, and, authorization was given to the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, and, his staff, to exercise powers under Section 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was, subsequently, published in the newspapers on 10.10.1994 and 11.10.1994 and, consequential declaration as required under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 6.10.1994. Consequent to the declaration, award enquiry was initiated by issuing notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and enquiry was posted on 17.12.1994. The petitioners herein, who are protesting acquisition of the land, did not attend the said enquiry, and, filed this writ petition on 16.2.1995. Initially, the writ petition was filed questioning the Notification and declaration, but, as much as during the pendency of the writ petition, as award was passed, subsequently, the relief sought for is amended by questioning the award also passed by the 6th respondent- Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, on 3.10.1996.

(3.) As stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners, that the land owned by the petitioners, admeasuring Ac.17.92 cents, is an agricultural land, and, they have developed the same by digging bore-wells and they are growing cash crops in the above said land. It is stated, the agricultural income from the above said land is only the source of income for them. It is stated, that the above said land was acquired only for the benefit of the fourth respondent, i.e., M/s. D.C.L. Polyesters Limited, a private limited company, without following the procedure as contemplated under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is also their case, that as much as the acquisition is for the fourth respondent- company, the District Collector is not the Competent Authority to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated in the affidavit, that having regard to the nature of acquisition, no urgency is involved so as to dispense with the enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and, to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. The Award is also questioned on the ground, that in absence of consent of the petitioners, impugned award is passed under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without conducting award enquiry as required under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.