MOULIPRASAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. Chandramouli Prasad has filed this Writ Petition to quash the notification made under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 23-12-1971 and also the notification issued under rection 6 of the Act which was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 18-2-72. The Government wanted to acquire Ac. 4-09 cents belonging to the petitioner in S.Nos. 172/1 and 172/2 of Hanumojipalem village for providing house sites for the Herjans. According to the counter filed on behalf of the Governments is stated that the notification under section 4 (I) of the Act was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 13-1-72. Under that notification the provisions of S. 5-A were dispensed with under S. 17 (4) of the Act. Notification under S. 6 was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 6-4-72. Notices under S. 9 (1) and S. 10 of the Act were duly promulgated and served on the persons interested in the manner prescribed under the rules. The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the notice on 21-6-72. Award enquiry was conducted on 10-72. The petitioner attended the enquiry on that date and consented for the acquisition and payment of compensation. It is stated that the award could not be passed immediately for want of sufficient funds. The award was passed on 10-3-76. Even before passing the award the petitioner was personally contacted by the Land Acquisition Officer on 4-2-1976 and the petitioner gave a statement stating that he has no objection but he also agreed for non-payment of cost for the existing structure (Cbapta) on the land acquired. Thereafter on 15-3-76 the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. His objections are first the enquiry under S. 5-A should not have been dispensed with. Secondly there, was no publication in the locality of the substance of the notification as contemplated by S. 4(1) of the Act. Thirdly, in view of the long delay in passing the award, the acquisition proceedings should be started afresh and thereby he would have the benefit of the difference in the market value of the land. Fourthly, under S. 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 herein after called the Ceilings Act the Government cannot proceed further with the acquisition proceedings because it is an alienation within the meaning of that section. On behalf of the Government it is submitted that this writ petition has been filed after nearly four years after the notification was published under S. 4(1) of the Act and on that sole ground I should dismiss it. Next it is submitted that the petitioner himself has consented for the acquisition and gave a statement to that effect and therefore his present objections should not be entertained. It is stated that there was really urgency when the notification was issued in 1972, and therefore rightly the enquiry under S. 5(A) was dispensed with. Lastly, it is contended that it is aot an alienation within the meaning of S. 17 of the Ceilings Act and even otherwise, that makes no difference nor does it invalidate the acquisition proceedings. I agree that the petitioner hat agreed for the acquisition of bis lands and payment of compensation and also gave a statement to that effect on 10-7-1972 before the enquiry officer. Similarly on 4-2-1976 he gave another statement before the Land Acquisition Officer in which he did not; file any objcctions, but also agreed for non-payment of the cost for the existing structuer (Chapta) on the land acquired. Thus he was never aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings. It is only after the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 came into force from 1-1-1975 under which he had to surrender his surplus land to the Government he filed this writ petition so that he might show the land acquired as surplus land liable for surrender under S.10 of that Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provocation for petitioner to file this writ petition was the long delay in making the award and therefore he could not be accused of any laches. I do not agree. In this petition he is questioning the land accquisition proceedings from A to Z and the main emphasis is that the acquisition is an alienation within the meaning of S. 17 (1) of the Land Ceilings Act. I have no doubt in my mind that this writ petition is filed more to circumvent the provisions of the Ceilings Act than because the petitioner is aggrieved by the acquisition of his lands. That is the real reason for the delay of four years. On that sole ground I should dismiss this writ petition. Nevertheles, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at length the questions raised by him, 1 propose to decide them. It is argued that since the award was passed nearly after four years the notification was made under S. 4(1) of jthe Act and so far poisessicn of the lands has not been taken, there is really no urgency in the matter so as to dispense with the enquiry under Sec. 5. A of the Act. In this case, the notification under S. 4 (I) was published in the Gazette on 13-1-1972. Enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act was dispensed with under that notification. I have to see whether there was really urgency on that date to dispense with the enquiry under Sec. 5-A. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it stated that the acquisition was urgent because it was intended to relieve the congestion in the existing Harian Cheri. It is further submitted that the State Government considered the reports submitted by the officials in that regard and approved the same after satisfying itsllf that the lands were suitable and required urgently for providing houses to the poor Harijans. It is a question of fact whether there was congestion in the existing Harijan Cheri and I cannot decide it in this writ petition. If there was urgency then certainly the Government was justified in dispensing with the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act on that date. The fact that subsequently the officials were tardy and negligent in dealing with the matter and did things in a leisurely way will not make any difference as to the evidence of the urgency on the date when the provisions of S. 5-A were dispensed with under S. 17 (4) of the Act, In this connection, I may refer to the decision of Chinnappa Reddy and Punnayya JJ, in W. P. No. 582 of 1976 and Sambasiva Rao and Punnayja JJ in W.A.No. 370 of 1976. The Supreme Court also observed in Jagu Ram v. State of Haryana (1):