MANTHINA VENKATAPATHI RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land acquisition proceedings involved in this petition relates to a small extent of 25 cents of land covered by S. Nos. 2/1-B and 8 lying in the village of Suryaraopeta of Kakinada Taluk, East Godavari District. A notification was issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 that the two properties included in the two survey numbers referred to therein, measuring in all Ac. 7-57 situate in that village were needed for a public purpose, namely, providing house sites to the landless labourers, that the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Kakinada, was authorised to exercise powers under section 14(2) of the Act and that the District Harijan Welfare Officer was appointed to perform the functions of the Collector. Subsequently, the notification under section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 9th May, 1950. These lands which originally belonged to one Peda Venkanna were purchased prior to the notification by a number of persons including the petitioner who bought 23 cents of land in S.No. 2/1-B. As the efforts of the petitioner and the other vendees from the said Venkanna to persuade the Government to drop the land acquisition proceedings proved futile, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The notification is attacked on several grounds, but the main contentions are : firstly, that the Harijan Welfare Officer appointed to perform the functions of the Collector under section 5-A of the Act is not one who fulfils the requirements of the relevant G.O. which lays down that the officer appointed to perform the functions of a Collector should not be below the rank of a Deputy Collector except a District Labour Officer, and, secondly, that no part of the compensation to be awarded for such property was paid by the Government nor a declaration of intention made in that behalf before the issue of the notification under section 6 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to other grounds of attack against the notification as they were given up by the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) As regards the first point, it is stated in paragraph 8 (c) of the counter-affidavit as follows :- "The appointment of the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Kakinada, to perform the functions of the Collector under section 5-A of the Act is legal and is in order. I beg to refer to G.O. Ms.No. 1306, dated 7th June, 1941." This G.O. is not made a part of the record nor placed before me. However, I may proceed on the assumption that the Government appointed for the purpose of holding an enquiry, an officer who is not below the rank of a Deputy Collector, as it is not likely that they would have appointed one who does not answer to the description, contained in that G.O. The contention of the petitioner, with regard to the requirement of the provisio to section 6, is met in the counter-affidavit of the Collector by stating that "there is no warrant for the assumption that the intention of the Government to contribute a portion of the cost of the acquisition should be manifest ex facie in the notification."

(3.) It is true that the intention need not appear on the face of the notification It is sufficient if the intention is made manifest prior to the publication of the declaration, but it is absolutely essential that the declaration of intention should precede the notification under section 6. I have discussed a similar question at some length in W.P. No. 944 of 1953 Sree Raja Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannatharao v. State of Andhra, Unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.944 of 1953, dated 20th July, 1955, and said, in agreement with the view of Rajagopalan, J., in Syed Dilwar Hussain v. Collector of Madras, (1955)1 M.L.J. 306, that although it is not necessary that the deposit of compensation should precede the notification under section 6 or that the declaration need not ex facie show the intention of the Government as envisaged in the proviso, the declaration of intention of the Government to pay a part of the compensation out of public funds should precede the notification under section 6. It is not necessary to repeat the reasoning in support of this conclusion. The Government have not stated anywhere that the intention was made manifest prior to the notification, nor even an attempt made in that behalf.