GORALLA VEERRAJU Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are preferred against a common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a batch of writ petitions. The petitioners (appellants) challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, proposing to acquire an extent of Ac. 259-79 Cents in Suryaraopet village near Kakinada Town. The notification under section 4 was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 30-10-1982. The Governor also invoked the urgency clause in sub-section (4) of Section 17 and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Accordingly he issued the declaration under Section 6, which too was published in the same Gazette. The notification states:

(2.) Sarvasri T. Anantha Babu and E. Manohar learned counsel for the petitioners (appellants) urged the following contentions:-

(3.) The learned Advocate-General appearing for the Housing Board supported the validity of the impugned notification and declaration besides supporting the reasoning of the learned single Judge. The learned Advocate General submitted that Sec 40-A of the Housing Board Act does not deprive the Government/Governor of the power inhering in them by virtue of Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, The modification of the Land Acquisition Act by the A P Housing Board Act is only to enable the Housing Board also to initiate proceedings for acquisition where land is required for its purposes, but was not intended to deprive the Government of the power vested in it by law. He submitted further that the provisions contained in Secs. 24 to 31 of the Housing Board Act were meant only to vest in the Government administrative control and supervision over the activities of the Board and that it cannot be said that the Housing Board cannot seek to acquire land for the purpose of a housing scheme unless the housing scheme is sanctioned and published finally in accordance with Secs. 24 to 31. The learned Advocate - General, however, conceded and in our opinion rightly-that in view of the provisions of the A P (Amendment) Act 9 of 1983, the simultaneous publication of the declaration under Section 6 along with tha notification under Sec. 4 is bad, and that the said declaration has to go. He howeer; supported the invocation of urgency clause dispens ing with the enquiry under Sec. 5-A as perfectly warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The plea of 'small farmers' is also denied, besides submitting that it is irrelevant when the land is being acquired for the purpose of the Housing Board.