KRISHNA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification contained in G. O. Rt. No. 560, Transport (Roads & BuilA-1dings), dated 2-6-1977, published in the A. P. Gazette under section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 in respect ot lands mentioned in the schedule thereto, situated in Somidi village, taluk & District Warangal. The notifiA-1cation states that the lands are proposed to be acquired "for a public purA-1pose, to wit, for construction oi Railway siding lor Food Corporation of India and approach road". Under the notification, the power under subA-1section (4) ol Section 17 has been invoked and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with. Accordingly, the declaration under Section 6 has also beeu puoiisficd in the same Gazette. The petitioner owns some ot the lands covered oy the notmcauon.

(2.) The petitioner says he is the owner of survey Nos. 150, 153 and 156, which are continuous to one another. There is a well in survey No. 156 excavated at a cost ot Rs. 25,000/-. On 20-3-1976 the officers of the Food Corporation of India, 3rd respondent in the writ petition, encroached upon the said lauds, cut the trees, removed the fencing, and occupied the same, A portion of the above lands on which a brick manufacturing unit has been constructed by the petitioner is stilt in possession ot the petitioner. In view of the tresspass, he tiled a writ petition, being W. P. No. 1283 of 1976, in this Court and obtained interim directions protecting his possession. In that writ petition, the 3rd respondent filed a counter stating that the Corporation occupied the lands of the petitioner only with his consent and not illegally. During the pendency of that writ petition, talks were held between the petitioner and the Corporation and, according tojhe petitioner, the Corporation assured him of adequate compensation whereupon he withdrew the writ petition on 8-6-1976. Thereafter, the Corporation constructed and completed the godowns in 1976 itself, but the petitioner was not paid any Compensation. While so, the impugned G. O. has been issued.

(3.) The petitioner is attacking the validity of the said notification two grounds, viz., (i) that, the substance of the notification under section 4 (1) was not published in the locality as required by law, and (ii) that, the Food Corporation of India is neither a department of the Government, nor a 'Company' as defined by the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 and, therefore, no acquisition can be made for its purposes. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Raja Ram vs State in support of this contention.