DATLA SREERAMACHANDRA RAJU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition Noe 2340 of 1983 :- The sole but substantial question that arises in this care is whether G O. Ms. No. 472 (Revenue), dated 22-2- I 538 is mandatory and non-complience of the same whether would vitiaid the acquisition proceedings initiated under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The undisputed facts are :- The two petitioners heroin are the owners of Survey Numbers 129/2-B romprisirg Acs. 2-76 cents and 136/3 comprisinq Acs. 2-24 certs They were acquired for the labouring classes to be ass goed as house sites. Section 4 (1) notification as well as Sec. 6 Delt raction have been published and section 5/A has been dispensed with. A list of beneficiaries for whose benefit the do sees. have been acquired has not been Published along with cither 4 (1) rotifcation or any notice issued the control under section 5-A since section 5-A itself has been dispensed with The petitioners were, however, served matchs under section 9 (3) and section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) In this set of circumstances, the contentions inter alia of the petitioner are that they are small farmers as they own the extent stated ebove which is under acquisition and more importantly, there has been non compliance of the provisions made in G.O. Ms. No. 472 dated 22 2-1938 under which it is obli- patory for the respondents to give names of the members to whom the assignment of the said land is intended in the notice issued under section 4 (1) and section 5-A together with the extents proposed to be given to each. Such information of notifying the same must also be furnished while submitting the draft declaration under section 6 of the Act.