UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDRA BHANGIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India filed this appeal assailing the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, disposing of the WritPetition.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners in the writ Petition who are respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed the Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus for passing of the Award in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.9-34 guntas in Survey Nos.28/1 and 28/2 of Bomrukunddowla village of Rajendranagar Mandal,Ranga Reddy District. The lands of the petitioners along with vast extents of more than hundred acres comprised in adjoining survey numbers were acquired by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Act") for purpose of establishing National Police Academy. A draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 25-3-1971 and draft declaration under Section 6 was published on 23 -11 -1972. Except the petitioners lands, in respect of all other acquired lands proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act and awards were passed. But strangely while the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are pending in respect of the petitioners lands, the authorities have issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (here in after referred to as "Act 30 of 1952") on 5-3-1978. Possession of the land was taken on 15-5-1978 under a panchnama. Thereafterwards a notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 4-1 -1979 withdrawing the Land Acquisition proceedings. Then a notification under Section 7 of Act 30 of 1952 was issued on 10-5-1979. It is not disputed that no work, development or otherwise was undertaken on the land. Again draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29-3-1984 and Section 6 declaration was published on 19-5-1986. Notices calling upon the petitioners to file claim petition was issued on 17-6-1986 pursuant to which the petitioners filed a claim petition. Thereafter they have not taken any action for passing the award as required under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act As no action was taken within the period of the two years as contemplated under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the writ petition was filed in this Court seeking a direction for passing the award. By order dated 7-4-1988 in WPMP No.2104/88, a learned Single Judge of this Court taking note of these factors and also the lapse under Section 11 -A of the Land Acquisition, Act, directed the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, to pass the Award by 19-5-1988. The same was not complied with by the authority and later an application in WPMP No. 10285/88 was filed seeking extension of time for passing the award, but the same was not granted. Thereafter WPMP No. 1446/88 was filed to vacate the interim directions granted in WPMP No.2104/88, but the interim directions was made absolute. Against that Writ Appeal No. 1801/88 was preferred. In the Writ Appeal the interim directions granted in W.P.M.P. No.2104/88 are maintained and extension of six months time was granted for passing the award and further the Division Bench directed to hear the Writ Petition expeditiously.Thereafter wards also award is notpassed. After hearing both parties, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the authorities to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings treating the date of Section 4(1) notification the date of of Judgment of the writ petition viz. 12-11-1993. It further directed the authorities to pay interest at 7 1/2% p.a. from the date of Section 4(1) notification i.e. 25-3-1971 till the date taking possession of the land i.e. 15-5-1978. The learned Single Judge held that when the authorities have taken possession of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, taking of the proceedings under Act 30 of 1952 is not proper and further they have not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 7(3) of Act 30 of 1952 and taking of land under Act 30 of 1952 is not proper. The learned Single Judge also held that taking the lands of the petitioners by invoking the provisions of Act 30 of 1952 while taking the lands of others admeasuring about Ac. 100-00 for the same purpose under the Land Acquisition Act is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by that Judgment of the learned Single Judge, this writ Appeal is filed.

(3.) Mr. P. Innayya Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, appearing for the appellant contended that the Central Government has got power to take the land under Act 30 of 1952. Therefore, the notification issued under Act 30 of 1952 cannot be said to be bad merely because the land acquisition proceedings taken already are subsisting. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition proceedings will not survive when the proceedings are withdrawn under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.