PEDDA YERRAPPAGARI VENKATARAMANA REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition the mother and son question the proposal made by the District Collector, Chittoor to acquire an extent of Ac. 0.56 cents of their land situated in Survey No. 467 of Bayyappagaripalla, Chittoor District. In the above Survey No. 467, the petitioners lands to an extent of Acs. 1-50 cents had been acquired once before in the year 1973 for the same purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. Now, once again, by the present proposals, the petitioners land to an extent of Ac. 0-56 cents situated in the same Survey Number is sought to be acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections. For the above purpose, the District Collector, Chittoor, had published Sec. 4 (1) notification in the District Gazette on 1310-1980 and according to the counter-affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the substance of that notification under Sec. 4 (1) was published on 23-12-1980. Even before making of local publication and along with Sec. 4 (1) notification Sec. 5-A inquiry was dispensed with and Sec. 6 declaration was made.

(2.) Now the petitioners challenged the legal validity of the aforesaid S. 4 (1) notification and notification dispensing with S. 5-A inquiry and making of S. 6 declaration in this Writ Petition; firstly on the ground that local publication of substance of S. 4 (1) notification was made beyond 40 days and secondly on the ground that they are small farmers and thirdly on the ground that their lands should not be allowed to be acquired because their lands in the same Survey Number were earlier acquired to an extent of Acs. 1.50 cents in the year 1978 for the same purpose and that it would be unjust for the State to acquire the lands belonging to one and the same person over and over again. They also say that adjacent to their lands acquired in the year 1978 and separating the present land from the previously acquired lands, there was equally suitable land belonging to the village Munsif and that the authorities omitting that land from acquisition are now attempting to acquire this land which is not contiguous to the earlier bit of the land acquired. They also say that dispensing with S. 5-A inquiry was mechanically done and the making of declaration of S. 6 notification simultaneously with S. 4 (1) notification is bad under the A. P. Amending Act 9 of 1983.

(3.) In the Counter, it is admitted that the substance of S. 4 (1) notification was made beyond 40 days. S. 2 of the Amending Act which declares that Act. No. 9 of 1983 should be deemed to have come into force with effect from 12-9-1975 requires the Collector to cause local publication within 40 days from the date of publication of such notification made under S. 4 (1) of the Act. As S. 2 of the Amending Act makes Act 9 of 1983 applicable to all acquisitions made on or after 12-9-1975, it should be held that the local publication was not made as required by law. In this case, local publication of the substance of S. 4 (1) notification having been made beyond 40 days, it must be held that there is no valid notification made under S. 4 (1) of the Act. As the making of a valid notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act is a condition precedent for initiating land acquisition proceedings and as that notification is made quite contrary to law, the acquisition of petitioners land under the above Gazette notification dt. 13-10-1980 cannot be upheld. The Collectors notification dt. 13-10-1980 should, therefore, be set aside.