G PATTABHI RAMAYYA AND CO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein who were the petitioners in the respective three writ petitions filed by them, seek to assail the orders dismissing the petitions filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking mandamus challenging the correctness and validity of the acquisition proceedings in Award No.1 of 1998 dated 10-6-1998 on the file of the second respondent herein as being violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The claim of the appellants is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of different extents of land in T.S.No. 1508 situate at Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam district. An attempt was made in the year 1994 for acquisition of said lands, however for some other reasons those proceedings were ultimately dropped. Later by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 6-5-1995 the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (for short VUDA) proposed to acquire the lands to an extent of Ac. 7.17 cents in T.S.No. 1508.

(2.) On a reading of the pleadings from both the sides, the relevant events and dates as took place and which are not seriously in dispute from either side are that in pursuance of the said notification dated 6-5-1995, the authorities have caused a publication of the notification in the local newspapers on 26-5-1995 and 27-5-1995 and the same was locally published on site on 13-6-1995. The notice purported under Section 5-A of the Act was issued on 24-8-1995 to which the petitioners say that they have filed comprehensive and detailed objections on 18-5-1996. Subsequently, the declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1-6-1996 and same was published in the gazettee on 11-6-1996. This later declaration was published in the local newspapers on 29-6-1996 and 30-6-1996 and published on site on 30-6-1996.

(3.) In regard to the award enquiry under Section 18 of the Act, authorities issued notice purported tinder Section 9(1) and (10) of the Act on 20-8-1996 and enquiry was held on 12-9-1996, 5-10-1996 and 26-12-1996, thereafter the impugned award is passed on 10-6-1998. From these checkered events, the main complaint of the appellants/petitioners was on the twin grounds; firstly that there was no proper enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and thus the objections raised by the petitioners which go to the root of the cause have remained unconsidered in a proper perspective. Secondly since the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 1- 6-1996 and ordered (sic. Published) on 11- 6-1996 itself, beyond the prescribed period of one year and therefore the whole proceedings got vitiated and liable to be set aside.