K ANKAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The temple of Sri Venkateswara on Tirumali Hills is one of the most renowned and ancient Vaishnative temples of our country. Every day devotees by thousands flock to the temple to have darshan of the Lord and to offer worship. On festival days, which are numerous, the number of devotees thronging the temple and its precincts increases ten-fold and twenty-fold. In recent years, with the facility of easy and convenient methods of transport, there is a daily increase of the number of pilgrims. These are matters of common knowledge in this State. With the great increase of the daily influx of pilgrims it appears to have been thought desirable that more amenities should be provided to them and care should be taken to eliminate insanitary conditions so as to prevent disease and epidemic. It was also thought necessary that the Sannidhi Street leading to the temple and the Mada Streets surrounding the temple should be widened. The Director of Town-Planning accordingly prepared a Town-Planning Scheme for the Tirumalai Hill Panchayat area and proceedings for acquiring the private Property situated in the area for the purposes of the Scheme were started under Sections 33(b), 34 and 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Town-Planning Act. These proceedings, were, however, quashed by a judgment of this Court in W. P. Nos. 653, 667, etc. of 1966 on the ground on the ground that the proceedings were instituted more than three years after the date of notification of the Scheme under the Town-Planning Act. This, however, did not preclude the Government from proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the Government issued notifications under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of several items of property. The notifications invariably stated that the lands specified in the notifications were needed for public purposes, namely, widening the Sannidhi Street, Gopuram Street and East Mada Street, construction of Police Station, Co-operative Stores, urinals and lavatories and providing for marketing centre and canteen for pilgrims. IN one notification which is the subject matter of W. P. No. 700 to 1967, the purpose is stated to be widening of East Mada Street and extension of Vahana Mandapam. The several petitioners in these writ petitions object to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and have filed these writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the several notifications under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. They have done so without availing themselves of the opportunity afforded by Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act of objecting to the acquisition and without awaiting the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

(2.) Sri Babulu Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners in W. P. Nos. 699 and 700 of 1967 urges that the proposed acquisition is not for a public purpose and that the acquisition is merely meant to acquire private property and vest it in the temple. There is no force whatever in this contention. Where immovable property is acquired for the purposes of a Town-Planning Scheme whether the machinery provided by the Land Acquisition Act as contemplated by Section 33 (a) of the Town-Planning Act as contemplated, by Section 33 (b) of the Act is employed, in either case, Section 33 provides that immovable property required for the purposes of a town planning scheme shall be deemed to be land needed for a public purpose, within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act Even apart from Sec. 33 of the Town-Planning Act, there can be little doubt that widening of the streets leading to the temple and surrounding the temple, construction of public urinals and lavatories and provision for marketing centres and canteens for the benefit of the pilgrims are certainly public purposes. This is not also seriously disputed, though Mr. Babulu Reddy contends that at any rate extension of Vahana Mandapam which is one of the purposes mentioned in the notification which is the subject matter of W. P. No. 700 of 1967 is not a public purpose. I do not agree with this contention either. The extension of Vahana Mandapam must be viewed in the context of the multitudes of pilgrims likely to gather at the Mandapam and in the context of the Scheme prepared by the Town-Planning authorities. Viewed in that context, I have no doubt that the acquisition of land for extension of Vahana Mandapam is also a public purpose.

(3.) The next submission of Sri Babul Reddy is that the compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act is proposed to be paid by the Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam and not wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by local authority. This Mr. Babul Reddy submits, is sufficient to invalidate the proceedings for acquiring the lands of the petitioners. The simple and straight answer to this argument is that the stage has not yet arrived for the Government to State whether the compensation is to be paid wholly or partly out of the public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by local authority. All that has happened so far is the issue of notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has yet to hear the objections of the aggrieved persons under Section 5-A of the Act before finally issuing a notification under Section 6 of the Act. The decision as to who should pay the whole or part of the compensation must be taken before a declaration under Section 6 is made. There is, therefore, yet time for the Government to decide whether the compensation is to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by local authority or even to drop the land acquisition proceedings altogether. My attention is drawn to the following statement in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government.