BONTHU SATYANARAYANA Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice Ref.(B-2) 374/96, dated 20-9-1996, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada (Rural) and the Notification Ref.L-1/6871/93, dated 19-12-1996, issued by the Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, as illegal and void and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to desist from giving effect to the same and pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) Sri V.L.N.Gopala Krishna Murthy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that when once possession is taken, the question of invoking Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) would not arise. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate this stand taken by him. The learned counsel also pointed out that even prior orders of this Court had not been properly understood and any way concerned authorities had misunderstood the said orders. The learned counsel also would submit that even if the stand taken by the third respondent to be accepted that the owner's name was not shown in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act aforesaid that would not vitiate the proceedings as such, and hence, it cannot be said that possession was not taken and in view of the specific stand taken by the Government that possession had been taken, invoking the power under Section 48 of the Act would not arise and inasmuch as the said action being one without jurisdiction, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate this stand taken by him.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and would maintain that it is no doubt true that stand had been taken that possession had been taken, but however to certain eligible persons already some alternative sites had been allotted and to certain ineligible persons the same was not given. The learned Government Pleader also would submit that in the light of the prior proceedings, the action of the government cannot be found fault in any way, especially, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.