MANCHIKANTI PARIJATAVALLI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the acquisition of the land to the extent of 12 acres 72 cents situated in Survey No. 100 of Kamepally village, Addanki Taluk, Prakasham district belonging to the petitioner. The essential facts are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 10-2-1983 for acquiring the land for the purpose of distributing it as house sites for the needy. The possession of the land was also admittedly taken on 9-4-1983.The petitioner filed W.P.No.4909/ 89 questioning the said acquisition. By order dated 24-12-1985, a single Judge of this Court held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity before the acquisition is completed, and accordingly, set aside the declaration under Section 6 and directed the respondents to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A and proceed thereafter to complete the acquisition. THIS order was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.350 of 1986. It is stated that inspite of several reminders, no enquiry has been conducted under Section 5-A and no declaration under Section 6 has been made. The petitioner claims that she has, thus, been deprived of her property without compensation and pleads for redress. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the affidavit of the petitioner had been sent for remarks and no instructions have been received so far and sought time. Inasmuch as the order of this Court directing the Department to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A has not been complied with so far, I do not consider it necessary to accede to this request. No counter has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 6, the acquisition has to be quashed and the respondents should be directed to return the land to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that when the possession has been taken, the land is vested in the Government and the acquisition should be validated without being required to be returned. He also pointed out that sub-clause (1)A of Section 23 the interest shall be awarded from the date of publication of 4(1) Notification and this will compensate for the delay in the proceedings. But, I am unable to accept this submission that such a compensation would itself be sufficient for the inordinate delay in this case. The real problem is that under the proviso to Section 6(1), no declaration can be made in a case of acquisition made before the Amendment Act of 1984 after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of Notification under Section 4(1). In the present case, since the Notification under Section 4(1) was made on 10-2-1983 no declaration can be made after 10-2-1986. Admittedly, as on today no declaration has been made so far. The fiat accompli is that the land has already been taken possession and distributed as house sites and it is now virtually impossible for the Government to take back the land and return it to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we have to balance the interest of the petitioner and the interest of the Government by validating the acquisition and ensuring that the petitioner receives adequate compensation. To my mind, this can be achieved by directing the respondents to complete the enquiry under Section 5-A and make a declaration forthwith on the basis that the Notification under Section 4(1) is deemed to have been made three years prior to the date of declaration under Section 6. To be explicit, the respondents shall make a declaration under Section 6 on or before 31-10-1996 on the assumption that a Notification under Section 4(1) has been made on 1-11-1993. Consequently, the respondents shall also pass an award determining the compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis of the market value as on 1-11-1993.

(2.) WITH these directions, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.