KAMIKACHERLA RANGAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are brothers. They have filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to quash the notification D/- 5-12-1977 acquiring a land of an extent of Ac. 11-20 cents in Survey No. 765 in the village of Peddagopathi, Khammam Taluq Khammam District, under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Nagarjunasagar Project (Acquisition of Land) Act (Act XXXII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as "Nagarjunasagar Act"). The petitioners case is that these lands belonged to their family but were partitioned between the members of the family. The petitioners are personally cultivating the lands. The lands held by each of the petitioners along with other lands owned by them are within the ceiling limit prescribed under the provisions of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act (Act 1 of 1973). The Nagarjunasagar Act provided for acquisition of land for any purpose connected with the Narajunasagar Project. The acquisition is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act subject to certain modifications. One of the modifications made to the Land Acquisition Act is the substitution of the following clause for Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act: -

(2.) Thus, whenever land is acquired for the Nagarjunasagar Project under the Nagarjunasagar project Act, the compensation paid is not always the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification as in the case of the Land Acquisition Act, but is either the market value on 1-7-1953 together with the value of the improvements to the land effected after that date and before the date of the publication of the notification or the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification whichever is less. The case of the petitioners is that the provision infringes the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under the second proviso to Art. 31-A of the Constitution which is to the following effect:

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector it is admitted that the petitioners have shares in the lands as per the sub division record. The second petitioner is entitled to Ac. 3-26 and the third petitioner is entitled to Ac. 3-09 and one Lakshminarasiah, another brother is entitled to Ac. 4-21 and that all the lands are under their personal cultivation. It is not denied that the lands belonging to the petitioners taken along with other lands owned by them are within the ceiling limit. It is however pointed out that one of the brothers, Lakshminarasiah, who is not a party to this writ petition, filed W. P. NO. 1586/1978 questioning the notification and that writ petition was dismissed by the Court on 28-2-1979. Even in that writ petition an issue was raised regarding payment of compensation according to the rates prevailing on 1-7-1963 instead of market value on the date of the notification. As W. P. No. 1586/78 was dismissed it is contended that the present writ petition may also be dismissed.