K SUBRAMANYESWARA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, as many as 32 in number, have made a prayer for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act No.68 of 1984, (in short, the "Act"), in respect of their total Ac. 21.59 cents, as detailed hereafter, situate at village Kooramannapalem in Gajuwaka Mandal of Visakhapatnam as illegal:- DETAILS OF LAND Survey No. Area Acres Cents 68/3A 6.63 69/1 0.69 69/3 1.21 69/4A 3.39 69/4B 1.69 69/5 4.09 69/6 A 1.22 69/7 2.67 2159

(2.) The petitioners claim themselves to be the owners of the said lands, having purchased the same between 1979 to 1984 under registered sale deeds. The said lands were sought to be acquired by publication of a notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Act on 26-10-1984 in the Official Gazette, on 29-11-1984 in the locality and on 22-2-1985 in the two daily newspapers in circulation in the locality, It Was alleged that the notices of enquiry under Section 5-A were given on 28-11-1984 and enquiry held on 2-1-1985 and 28-1-1985. The declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was, thereafter, made on 20-2-1986 by publication of the notification in OfficialGazette,on21-2-1986 and 22-2-1986 by publication of the notification in two daily newspapers and on 10-3-1986 bypublication of the substance of the said notification under Section 6(1) in the locality. Accordingly it was asserted that the proceedings for acquisition were bad as the publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in two daily newspapers was subsequent to the date of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, (date of publication is 22-2-1985, whereas enquiry dates are 2-1-1985 and 28-1-1985,) and further as the declaration under Section 6(1) was made beyond one year in disregard with the provisions of clause (ii) of first proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act. The respondents resisted the petition, but did not dispute the correctness of the various dates alleged by the petitioners.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, what I find is that although it is not necessary to issue notices under Sec. 5-A of the Act to land owners, calling upon them to raise objections, if any, against the proposed acquisition, the first respondent appears to have had issued such notices to the petitioners and the latter also appear to have had lodged objections, as manifested by the following allegations in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of their petition by the petitioners: