P MADHAVA NAIDU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions raise common questions of law and therefore can be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners are the residents of Tirumalai Hills area and own houses. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in all prepared six schemes to develop the Tirumalai Hills. Out of these schemes, scheme No. 1 and scheme No. 3 have received sanction of the State Government, whereas the other schemes are still at the intermediate state and have not yet received the sanction of the Government. Although some objections in legard to the other schemes also have been raised by the petitioners it is conceded by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the disposal of the objections may be confined to schemes Nos. 1 and 3. Under these schemes, the petitioners' houses are to be acquired for the purpose of improvement of that area.

(2.) The Board of Trustees of the Tirumalai Devasthanam passed a resolution 356, dated 28th April, 1958, sanctioning the acquisition of allprivate properties at Tirumalai which are not in conformity with the town planning scheme and the master plan of the town planning scheme as prepared by the Director of Town Planning. Scheme 1 therefore was sanctioned by the Government through G.O. Ms. No. 1547/ MA. dated 15th November, 1960, under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920, hereinafter called the Act. The scheme was published in the Gazette dated 12th January, 1961. Another notification purported to have been issued under section 14 (5) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 2nd May, 1963. The latter notification is impugned in these writ petitions. The principal contention of thelearned Advocate for the petitioners is that when the earlier notification was published under section 14 (5) on 12th January, 1961, no other notification coud be published and even if pullished will not extend the time which had commenced from the date when the previous notification was published under section 34 of the Act.

(3.) In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary co read section 14 of the Act. According to sub-section (1) of chat section if within sixty days frcm the date of publication of a draft scheme any perscn affected by such scheme communicates in writing any objection or suggestion, the Council shall consider such objection or suggestion and may modify the scheme as it thinks fit. According to sub-section (2) the scheme as passed cr adopted by the Council together with the objections or suggestions would then be submitted to the Government for sanction, the fact of such submission being published in the prescribed manner. It is under sub-section (3) that the State Government may after considering the objections and suggestions and making such enquiry as they think fit sanction the scheme with or without modification or may refuse to sanction the scheme or may return the scheme to the Council for reconsideration. I am not concerned with the three provisos to that sub-section.