SECRETARY Vs. KHAJA MUMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal No. 1059 of 1992 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Code has arisen out of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has been disposed of by almost a dismissive order, but the petition has been allowed. The order reads as follows:

(2.) Facts brought to the notice of the Court are that an extent of Ac.23-01 guntas of land in S.No.9 was soughtto be acquired and a notification in this behalf under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 7-3-1968. This was followed by an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 26-11 -1970. This was challenged by way of a representation stating therein that possession of land would be deemed to have been taken from them on 5-9-1967. On 10-5-1979, however, an errata was published reducing the extent of land for possession from 23-01 guntas to Ac. 15-26 guntas. It appears, however, that the proceeding in the meanwhile lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act and the writ petition, which came up for final hearing, was ordered as above. There is some controversy before us, whether, as alleged by the petitioner-respondents before the award was made or as a proceeding under Section 17 of the Act, possession was taken either under Section 16 of the Act or Section 17(1) of the Act. Section 11-A of the Act, it is not in dispute, is fully attracted on the facts of this case and since award has not been made within the time prescribed therein, the proceeding has lapsed. Our attention has been drawn to ajudgment by a learned single Judge of this Court in S.L. Balakrishna & Another v. State of A.P. and Ors. (1)1992 (3) ALT 44, in which the learned single Judge has stated as follows: "Writ of mandamus is a remedy available to any person who is trying to assert his legal right by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiacompelling the public authority to perform a legal duty cast upon it. If the State Government or the public authority, as the case may be, fails to discharge their obligation or if they exercise the discretion vested in them in the manner which is not fair and reasonable, the High Court can apply the correct procedure by issue of writ of Mandamus directing such authority to do a particular act, which is in accordance with the principles of law, justice and equity. The power of judicial review in issuing prerogative writs vested in the High Court cannot be crumbled at the riskof certain technical difficulties which may arise in the way. The concept of jurisdiction in issuing a writ, particularly in the nature of mandamus, is a concept based not merely on the principles of common law, but on the basis of equity and good conscience. In this case, the road was laid by the then Panchayat Samithi and subsequently, the area covered by the said road fell in the extended area of a municipality. The District Collector published draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the District Gazette in the year 1985. On the ground that the award could not be passed within the stipulated period of two years of the date of publication of the declaration as per Section 11-A of the Act, the right of the petitioners to get the compensation cannot be denied." and another similar order by a learned single Judge in Ari Nageswararao v. The District Collector Ongole and Ors. (2) 1995 (3) ALT 399 = 1995 (3) ALD 143, in which, besides ordering for acquisition of land, learned single Judge has also observed as follows:

(3.) Land Acquisition Act is accepted as a valid law under Article 13 of the Constitution of India in recognition of doctrine ofEminent domain of the Government representing the Sovereign in a democracy. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act contemplates publication of a preliminary notification that the land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose and provides in sub-section (2) thereof,