DANDU TRINADHA RAJU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioners against the order dt. 30-8-2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court who dismissed the writ petition being W.P. No. 18880 Of 2005.

(2.) The writ petition was filed challenging the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto by the State Government as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. The writ petitioners, who are 23 in number, contended that they had purchased house plots in Sy.No.98/1 -A of Pedagantyada village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Each petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the house plots ranging from an extent of 267 sq. yards to 366 sq. yards except 9th petitioner who possesses a house plot of 672 sq. yards. The petitioner who filed the affidavit on behalf of other petitioners is the 1st petitioner. It is curious to note that he owns 4 house plots in the area and petitioners 4 and 8 also possess 4 house plots each. An extent of Ac. 14-20 cents covered by Sy.No.98/IA of Peda Gantyada village was earlier acquired for the steel plant rehabilitation purpose by the Special Deputy Collector, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in the year 1981, but the same was reconveyed to the original owners by proceedings dt. 3-12-1985 by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, as the land was no longer required for rehabilitation of the displaced families as a result of establishment of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. After it was reconveyed the petitioners purchased the house plots from the original owners in the year 1986. An application was moved before the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority for approval of layout and the plan was approved on 6-10-1988. Thereafter roads were developed and other development activities were taken up. The petitioners also paid development charges to VUDA and the Gram Panchayat. The layout land is situated on the south eastern side of the road cum rail track to be formed for the Gangavaram Port. There was a housing colony of the A.P. Housing Board to the north of the land. The petitioners were not able to renew their lay out because of dearth of funds and as on to Lal day, on their own showing, they did not obtain permission to construct houses. In the year 1994 the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant proposed acquisition of the land by issuing a notification on 6-1-1994 for the purpose of laying a railway line to Gangavaram port from the Steel plant. The petitioners filed their objections and an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The proposal was dropped taking into consideration the request of the petitioners. The petitioners contended that they were under the hope that they could mobilize finances to construct houses in the near future, but the 1st respondent issued the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act proposing to acquire the entire land of Ac. 14-20 cents. It is submitted that the said notification did not contain the names of the petitioners, but the names of original owners were shown. The purpose mentioned in the notification was for providing development of Gangavaram Port and for providing infrastructure facilities. The notification was published in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper on 18-4-2005. The notification also discloses that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. Subsequently a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 26-4-2005 in new Indian Express News Paper. It was also mentioned in the notification that the possession of the land would be taken within 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Sec. 9 (1) of the Act, but the notice has not been issued so far. It is stated that in accordance with Section 17 (5) (a) of the Act the possession of the land had to be taken within three months from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and on this count the writ petition should be allowed. It is also stated that alternate land belong! ng to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant was available. Had they been given an opportunity, the petitioners would have shown that the land other than their land was available for acquisition.

(3.) Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition in which he stated that the Commissioner of Ports, Kakinada had sent a requisition through Collector, Visakhapatnam for acquisition of Ac.14-20 cents in Sy.No.98/IA of Pedagantyada village and Mandal of Visakhapatnam district which was required for public purpose for providing back up area to Gangavaram Port. On requisition made by the Commissioner of Ports, Kakinada, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam had approved the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 10-4-2005. Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 15-4-2005. Notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act were also published and the persons interested in the land were asked to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer for award enquiry to be held on 16-9-2005. On 16-9-2005 four persons out of the notified persons had attended for award enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer and submitted their claim statements along with documents. The first appellant herein also attended the award enquiry and submitted a representation that he filed a writ appeal before this Court and requested to grant him some more time for submitting claim statements. The award enquiry was in progress. It isfurther submitted that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Ad was dispensed with by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act.