DHUNJI J MISTRY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, Dhunji J. Mistry, had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the notification in Memo No.D3/4157/93, dated 2-7-1993, declaration in Memo No.D3/4157/93, dated 14-7-1994 and Award No.B/251/89, dated 31-1-1997 as illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable as being violative of Sections 4, 5, 11 and 11-A of Land Acquisition Act and principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Originally notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience, was published in A.P. Gazette, dated 17-6-1990 in Memo No.D3/4199/89 and the same had lapsed for non-taking of further steps under the Act. Subsequent thereto yet another notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in Memo No.D3/ 4157/93, dated 2-7-1993 was published in A.P. Gazette on 8-10-1993 and it was published in the local Newspapers, Eenadu on 16-11-1993 and in Pledge on 15-11-1993 and the substance of the notification Was published in the locality on 11-11-1993. Thereafter requisite draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act in Memo No.D3/4157/ 93, dated 14-7-1994 was published in the A.P. Gazette on 1-8-1994 and it was published in two News Papers i.e., Citizen (Evening) and Andhra Bhoomi on 2-2-1995 and the substance of the same was published in the locality on 31-1-1995. It was averred that from the above narrative of the dates of publication of draft notification and declaration it is apparent that the respondents had violated the statutory mandate under Section 6 of the Act to the effect that the draft declaration has to be made within one year from the date of publication of the draft notification. The provisions of Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act make it clear that the relevant date of publication for the purpose of computation of the period is the last of dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice. It was further averred that in the present case the last of the date of public notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was 16-11-1993 when it was published in Eenadu News Paper. The last of the dates of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was 2-2-1995 when the declaration was published in Citizen and Andhra Bhoomi News papers. Thus it is apparent that the respondents had failed to publish the draft declaration within one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and this lapse on the part of the respondents caused a serious prejudice to the writ petitioner.

(3.) It was further averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued and published by the 1st respondent who is not competent to do so. Section 4(1) of the Act makes it clear that the appropriate Government shall publish a notification where it appears necessary for the Government to acquire any land for public purpose. The 1st respondent was not empowered or delegated to issue such a notification if the land is required for road widening and hence the impugned proceedings are illegal and unauthorized. It was also further averred that the 2nd respondent issued a notice in Lr.No.B/251/89, dated 15-7-1995 as required under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act for award enquiry fixing the date of hearing as 4-8-1995 and the writ petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent through his Counsel and submitted claim petition on 11-10-1995. After submission of the claim petition, no further intimation of the enquiry or proceeding was given and only in January, 1997 a notice dated 18-1-1997 was served on the Counsel for the writ petitioner fixing the date of hearing on 22-1-1997. Thereafter the 2nd respondent seems to have passed an award but no notice of the passing of the award was given to the writ petitioner till the statutory period had lapsed The proceedings had lapsed on expiry of two years from the date of publication of the declaration by 1-2-1997. Surprisingly the 2nd respondent had served a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 2-4-1997 which was dated 17-3-1997. The notice is intended to inform the claimants about the relevant particulars of the award but the 2nd respondent had deliberately chosen to remain silent about the number and date of the award. This vague notice had lent support to the apprehension of the writ petitioner that the 2nd respondent having failed to pass an award within the time prescribed, ante-dated it to cure the defect. The enquiries of the writ petitioner in this regard revealed that the award was dated 31-1-1997 and the writ petitioner filed an application for a certified copy of the award and obtained the same to verify the legality of the award.