CHILLAPALLIKANAKAIAH Vs. V DISTRICT COLLECTOR WEST GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether the impugned declaration Under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) is valid or not.

(2.) A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are that an extent of Ac. 8.82 cents of land (belonging to the petitioner) in Sy.Nos.740/2 to 778/2, was sought to be acqu ired under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of setting up a market yard at Chintalapudi Village in West Godavari District. The Collector, West Godavari District issued proceedings in Roc.No.K3 15952/93, Dated 4-11-1993 and accordingly the notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act as amended by the Act 68/84 was published in Andhra Bhoomi Telugu Daily News Paper on 29-11-1993. Atthesametime,theCollector also invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act to take possession of the land. Thus, enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the said Act has been dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30-12-1993. The Proceedings were pending for a long time and thereafter notices under Section 9 of the Act, came to be issued by the 2nd respondent on 5-1 -1994. Though several grounds are taken in the Writ Petition, Sri S.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that Section 17(5) of the Amended Act enjoins that possession of the land ought to have been taken within three months from the date of Section 4(1) Notification, and whereas possession has been taken after more than three months and hence the same is liable to be set aside; and consequently an enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act shall follow. He relied on two judgments of this Court in Smt. E. Krishnaveni v. Slate of Andhra Pradesh (\) 1990(1) ALT 136and G. James and Others v. G. Murali Krishna &Ors. (2) 1991 (3) ALT (2).

(3.) Whereas, Sri Raja Gopala Rao, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition urged that not only possession was taken by invoking urgency clause, but also an amount of Rs.21.50 lakhs has been deposited with the concerned Land Acquisition Officer by the requisitioning Department as long back as 23-3-1993 and in such an event, the Land Acquisition Proceedings do not elapse. He relied on the Judgment in Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (3) AIR 1996 SC 122.