TIRUNURU SUBBAREDDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner-landholders under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to quash the acquisition proceedings relating to their lands notified under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of construction of s Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited (2nd respondent herein)

(2.) The 2nd respondent war incorporated for the manufacture or sugar as an industrial unit. About 20 acres of land belonging to the petitioners along with about 100 acres of land belonging to third parties are sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of sugar factory. This sugar factory is sought to be constructed pursuant to the Scheme sponsored by the Government with a view to encourage the Sugar industry as well as sugar-cane growers in the Nellore District and also to increase the production of sugar to meet acute shortage of sugar. As the land covered by the acquisition in question was found by the concerned authorities to be most suitable for the installation of the factory, the same is sought to be acquired. A notification dated 28-9-1976 ,under S. 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 14-10-1976 . As the acquisition of the land in question is for an urgent public purpose, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with. Except the petitioners lands, the remaining lands belonging to other persons have already been acquired. possession of the same was taken and the same was handed over to the sugar factory by the concerned authorities Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings. this writ petition has been tiled by the petitioners.

(3.) The sum and substance of the submission of Sri P. h. Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioners is four fold: (1) The acquisition sought to be made-for the cooperative sugar factory if not for public purpose. (2) the 2nd respondent-society being a company, the provisions of Part V I of Act are attracted and, therefore, the failure to have a, enquiry under Ss. 5A and 40 (1) of the Act vitiated the entire acquisition proceedings; (3) the provision, of S. 6 (1) of the Act cannot be applied to the instant case as the same has been repeated and new provisions substituted in its place as per clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of S .3 of Andhra Pradesh Act XXII of 1976; and (4) the payment of Rs. 100.00 by the State towards the acquisition of the lands for the and respondent-society is colorable exercise of power as the amount is a paltry sum and, therefore, the provisions of law are not complied with.