P. BALAJIRAO Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the land acquisition proceedings started by the Collector in relation to a portion of land bearing Survey Number 62 in the village Bakaram, within the Municipal limits of Hyderabad City. The petitioner is an auction purchaser of the said land in a Court sale which was held on 23-9-1955. He obtained permission from the Municipality for construction of a house thereon and had started construction when to his surprise he received a letter dated 1-12-55 from the C.I.B. Engineer calling upon him to stop construction as the land has been earmarked for industrial housing scheme. The petitioner thereafter came to know that on 7-12-55 the Government had sanctioned acquisition of the said land and the Collector was directed to take action under Section 6 and possession under the emergency provisions of Section 12(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the proceedings are invalid and liable to be quashed as there has been a clear contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in as much as no notice under rule 3 or declaration under rule 5 of the C.I.B. Land Acquisition Rules have been issued or made which may give jurisdiction to the Collector.

(2.) The contention of the Government Pleader on the contrary is that the notice and notification did issue under rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for the Acquisition of Lands by the Hyderabad City Improvement Board and they were published in the Gazette on 9th Bahman, 1356 F. and 5th 'Thir, 1356F. and hence the proceedings started were in accordance with law and suffer from no inherent defect or informality to be liable to be quashed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner now is that the notifications issued under rules 3 and 5 do not conform with the essentials laid down in those rules. They do not contain the declaration as to the specified purpose for which, the land is required nor do they state the exact locality in which the land is situated nor the approximate area of the land required nor that the plan of the land to be acquired is available. Thus there is a clear contravention of rule 5, as a result of which the whole subsequent proceedings are rendered null and void. In support of his contention the learned counsel has invited my attention to a decision of this Court in W.A. 89 of 1955. That decision is clear on the point. In that case the notifications under rules 3 and 5 were made on 23-12-1940 and 15-6-1942 respectively. The notifications gave information to the public that the land, house and malgis comprised within the boundaries set out therein would be acquired and did not contain such other particulars as were required to be stated according to the provisions of rule 5. The notifications under Sections 7 and 8 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act issued thereafter only in the year 1955 i.e, after the lapse of more than 12 years. In those circumstances it was held that there has been no compliance with the provisions of rules 3 and 5 of the Rules for the acquisition of lands by the Hyderabad City Improvement Board and that this was sufficient to invalidate the declarations and notifications. It was seriously urged therein that non-specification of the approximate area was net material when the boundaries were clearly mentioned and that it was not meticulous accuracy in stating the essentials of rule 5 but only substantial compliance with the provisions of the said rule that should be insisted upon. But this contention was repelled on the ground that such provisions of a statute in respect of acquisitions of lands as are essential pre-requisites for conferring jurisdiction on the Collector must be strictly complied with and non-compliance or insufficient compliance was fatal to the proceedings. It was also held that when the notifications were issued long ago in a vague manner and there has been a full for a period of 12 years and more during which price levels increased abnormally, it cannot be said that the owners of the property covered by the notification did not suffer great prejudice in as much as the price of their lands had to be determined according to the market rates prevailing in the years of notification when there was a great depression. What has been observed in that case applies to the facts of the present case as well. After a period of 8 years the proceedings under Section 7 and 8 have been started and the notifications issued in 1356 Fasli do not bear the requisite essentials of rules 3 and 5 and further during the ensuing period the market prices rose high. It is further significant that the petitioner got the property in a court-sale. In my opinion, since there has been a serious omission and no proper compliance with the provisions of section 3 and 5, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act as directed to be started under the order of the Government dated 7-12-1955 bearing No. 6672/6673/A. 3/800/55-56 are without jurisdiction and they are liable to be quashed. I, therefore, quash the above order. The writ petition is allowed with costs. Advocate's fee: Rs. 50/-. Writ Petition Allowed.