S YEDUKONDALU Vs. DISTICT COLLECTOR WEST GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these matters are owners of agricultural lands in different villages of West Godavari District. They filed these writ petitions aggrieved by the action of the District Collector in issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), proposing to acquire the land for public purpose. In W.P.Nos. 14075, 14152 and 14233 of 2006, the land is sought to be acquired for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections under a Government Scheme known as Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas & Model Municipal Areas (popularized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh as Indiramma Scheme). In other two writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.14260 and 14279 of 2006, the land is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to persons belonging to weaker sections (not under Indiramma Scheme).

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the writ petitions raised various grounds in challenging the impugned notifications A summing up the submissions would show that mainly three: grounds are urged. First, when the land is sought to be acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections, there is no warrant for assuming urgency and invoke the power under subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Act to dispense with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The enquiry provided under Section 5-A of the Act gives a valuable right to the owners of the land to put up their objections before the acquiring authority and seek exclusion of the land from the acquisition. Strong reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14 and Union of India v Krishan Lal Arneja, (2004) 8 SCC 4:53. The counsel also placed reliance on a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 12894 of 2006, dated 27.06.2006 (unreported), in support of the contention that the acquisition for providing house sites to weaker sections is not of emergent nature. Secondly, in the village where the land is sought to be acquired, there is adequate and suitable Government land available, and therefore, the acquisition is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government and Board of Revenue from time to time prohibiting acquisition of private lands when the Government land is available. Lastly, in some of the writ petitions, they contend that the petitioners are owners of small-holdings and therefore, acquisition of their lands is prohibited under law.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) opposed the writ petitions. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Housing Board v Shri Kishan, (1993) 2 SCC 84 Chameli Singh v. State of U.P, (1996) 2 SCC 549 Union of India v Praveen Gupta, (1997) 9 SCC 78 and Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P., (1999) 2 SCC 384 and a decision of this Court in Janapareddy Venkateswara Rao v District Collector, Eluru, 1999 (3) ALD 42 learned A.G.P. submits that the acquisition of land for providing house sites to weaker sections is of emergent nature and therefore, there is no illegality in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Secondly, it is urged that before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Mangal Revenue Officers conducted proper enquiries in the villages and after coming to conclusion that there is no Government land available and even if the Government land is available, that is not suitable for hous,e sites proposals were sent to the Distric Collector, who issued impugned notifications.