SHAIRKHAN MOHAMMED ABDULLAH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHASKARAN, C. J. :-The Brief facts :- Pursuant to a notification under S.4(1) and a simultaneous declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act') dispensing with enquiry under S.5-A invoking S. 17(4), 4.03 acres of land belonging to the appellant-petitioner was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, to wit, for providing house-sites for the weaker Sections, like the Kuruvas. The appellant's writ petition was one for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the notification under S.4 and declaration under S.6 relating to the acquisition of the said 4.03 acres as illegal and unconstitutional, and for other incidental reliefs. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition setting aside the declaration under S.6 of the Act, and directing the first respondent, the District Collector, to conduct an enquiry under S.5-A of the Act after giving due notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the beneficiaries, who got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. The contention that the proceedings were bad on account of the substance of the notification not having been published according to law was found against the writ petitioner, and was rejected by the learned single Judge. The two other contentions : (1) that an extent of 15 acres had already been acquired earlier for the very same purpose; and, therefore, the acquisition under the notification and declaration challenged in the writ petition was unnecessary; and (2) that the proceedings were bad for the Land Acquisition Officer not having obtained the prior approval of the State Government, were left open without being decided on merits, with liberty for the writ petitioner to raise them before the Land Acquisition Officer in the course of S.5-A enquiry directed to be held. The question of law raised in the appeals -

(2.) In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant-petitioner is seen to have raised a ground that the points left open to be raised before the Land Acquisition Officer sought to have been decided by the learned single Judge himself. What, however, was pressed and argued at considerable length before us was Ground No. 15, which was not taken either before the Land Acquisition Officer or even in the writ petition, which reads as follows :-

(3.) The assumption of the appellant in Ground No. 15 that the list of intended allottees of house-sites had to be given as part of S.6 declaration in accordance with the decision of this Court does not appear to be correct. A careful reading of the Madras G.O. on which the decision of this Court, rests would reveal that it does not, in terms, require a list of intended allottees of house-sites to be given as part of S. 6 declaration. What the Madras G.O. states is; "the names of the members to whom it is intended to assign the land when acquired should be given in the notice issued under Sections 4(1) and 5-A together with the extents proposed to be given to each". The further requirement is that the information as to whether the above instruction had been complied with should be furnished when submitting the draft declaration under S.6 of the Act, not that a list of intended allottees of the house-sites should be given as part thereof.