KANTHETI SURYANARAYANA Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN extent of 2 acres and 84 cents in survey No. 33/1 of land containing a tender coconut garden is sought to be acquired in the present case. The lands are situated in G. Vemavaram village of Mummidivaram taluk, East Godavari District. The Notification under Sec. 4(1) and the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published in the Gazette on 28 -11 -1981 and the local publication of the 4(1) Notification was made in the locality on 5 -12 -1981. The main ground on which the proceedings are questioned is that the respondents have chosen the petitioner's garden only on the ground that the same was asked for by the beneficiaries as per their application given in 1981 and that the respondents have not applied their mind to the cost of the land and to the burden on the revenue or to the fact that the alternative land is available in the village belonging to the petitioner. It is also argued that the petitioner has himself offered 3 acres of land in Survey No. 38 and 39 in the same locality.

(2.) A counter has been filed in the present case, and the record of the case has also been produced before me by the learned Govt. Pleader. I will refer to the facts which are revealed from the record. On 24 -8 -1981, some of the villagers said to belong to the weaker sections, appear to have registered a Society, known as "G. Vemavaram Balaheena Vargala Congress Committee'. Thereafter, the members of the said committee submitted a representation to the Sub -Collector, Amalapuram on 12 -10 -81 and stated as follows:

(3.) THEREAFTER , we have in the record of the case, a report of the Dy. Tahsildar dt 7 -11 -1981, stating that he, along with the UDRI inspected the lands and found that the site applied for by the applicants is shown in the village accounts as dry lands, and that there are no permanent or temporary structures. Thereafter, he also points that the land owner is a rich man, whose livelihood will not be affected if the land is taken over. The Deputy Tahsildar also filled -up a printed proforma, which is described as a check slip. In paragraph 6 (c), he observed as follows: