NAKKA AMMORAYYA Vs. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition. the acquisition of land bearing S Nos. 26 and 30 measuring Ac. 6-16 cents in Kothapalli village, Pithapuram taluk, East Godavari District is challenged mainly on the following grounds: (1) that there was "O proclamation of the substance of the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the village, even though the Notification was published in the Gazatte on 11-2-1978. (2) that there was not such urgency so as to dispense with the enquiry under S, 5-A by invoking S 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and (3) that when other suitable lend is available for acquisition for the purpose of house sites to the poor the petitianers land was deliberately acquired omitting the above land which is adjacent to Harijanwada.

(2.) We shall take up the second ground first. So far as invoking S. 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is concerned, it is averred in the affidavit that dispensing with the enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act is bad for the Reason that the acquisition of the petitioners land for the purpose of house-sites to the poor is not so urgent as to invoke the urgency clause and the Supreme Court has also accepted the view that the acquisition of lands for the purpose of providing house-sites to the poor is not to urgent as to deprive the petitioner of his valuable right under S 5-A of the Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Narayan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that on a representation made in this regard for the provision of how-sites to the houseless poor in Kothapalli village of Pithapuram taluk, the District Social Welfare Officer (General), Kakinada, inspected the lands around the village, Kothapalli, on 29-12-1947, that the proposals for the provision of house-sites to the poor houseless backward class families have been initiated in consultation with the beneficiaries, that the village is very densely populated and was congested with groaning unhygienic conditions and that, therefore, there was urgent necessity to release congestion in the village. in view of the above facts it is stated that they wanted to take urgent measures and that, therefore urgency clause was invoked.