SARAGADAM APPARAO Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called "the Act") and the award made by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam. In order to understand the contention urged by the petitioners' learned Advocate, it is necessary to state a few facts.

(2.) The 3rd respondent, Anakapalle Co-operative Society, moved the Government for the acquisition of a certain land in and around the municipal market place, for construction of godowns to store jaggery. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 19th March, 1956, setting out the details of the survey number of the land which was proposed to be acquired, viz., S. Nos. 221/2, 222, 246/2 and 247/2, comprising in all of 36,481 squire feet. After an enquiry under section 5-A was held, notification under section 6 was published on 3rd July, 1958. After that, notices under sections 9 and 10 were given and the 12th petitioner, who alleges to be the owner of half of S. No. 247/2 comprising an area of 5457 square feet was served on 3rd December, 1960. Notwithstanding the receipt of notice, the 12th petitioner raised no objection either to the acquisition or the validity of the notifications nor did she claim any particular rate per square feet. It may be stated that of the other 11 petitioners, some of them are the tenants of the 12th petitioner and others are tenants of the owners who have accepted the award and are not parties before us. They are also not represented by any one. Consequently, the only person whose claim we need consider in this writ petition is that of the 12th petitioner. It may also be stated that the Government had called upon the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 44,902-7-2 towards the acquisition and accordingly the 3rd respondent paid on 3rd May, 1955 a sum of Rs. 30,931-2-8 and on 19th August, 1960, Rs. 13,971-4-6 making a total of Rs. 44,902-7-2. The Revenue Divisional Officer who was at first seized of the matter, seems to have delayed the acquisition, because he discovered when he was about to pass the award that the Government had not made a token contribution, which it subsequently made, viz., 6 nP. Later an agreement was taken by the 3rd respondent and that was notified. But that agreement was also de-notified and cancelled on 27th May, 1964. On 4th July, 1964, the Government sanctioned Rs. 100 as their contribution.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner challenges the notification and the award on the following two grounds namely :- (1) that the award has been passed after an inordinate delay, without any justification, of 7 years after the publication of section 6 notification and (2) that the intention to pay for the acquisition wholly or in part from public revenues was not manifested by the Government prior to the publication of section 6 notification and as such the notification is void and illegal and must be quashed.