GOWRI BHEEMAPPA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 21- 7- 1978 which was published in the Gazette on 17- 8- 1978 Lands in survey Nos. 5 to 9, 11 and 12 of varying extents in Shaipur village Tandur Taluk, \Rangareddy District were acquired for a public purpose viz., for providing house- sites to scheduled castes Backward class, scheduled Tribes and other landless workers, By the same notification, it was directed that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of section 5- A of the Act will not apply to the case. The petitioner in writ petition No, 2762 of 1979 is the owner of 5 acres, guntas in Survey No. 6, which according to him has been wrongly shown as 5 acres 3 guntas in the notification. He is also the owner of Survey Nos. 9/a, 9aa/, 9/c, 9/cc of an extent of 2 acres, 20 guntas. He filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the acquisition of the lands belonging to him. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2868 of 1979 is the owner of 12 acres, 20 guntas in survey No. 6 and 14 acres, 5 guntas in survey no.7 He also prays that a write-off mandamus may be issued directing the authorities not to proceed with the acquisition of the lands belonging to him. The notification under section 4 was followed by a notification under Sec. 6 of the Act on the same day. Though the notification under Section 4 was published in the gazette on 20- 7- 1978, it was published in the village only on 16-1-1979.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner in writ petition No. 2762 of 1979 is that under section 4 (1) of the Act read with R.1 of the rules framed under the Act, a copy of the notification should be published in the village immediately, but nearly six months after the publication of the notification in the Gazette, the notification under Sec. 4 (1) as well as the subsequent proceedings for acquisition are illegal. It is further contended that the requirements for dispensing with the enquiry under section 5- A are not satisfied as there is no urgency. The petitioner in writ petition No 2868 of 1979 challenges the acquisition proceedings also on the ground of mala fides. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to a minority community having no support from the pulling party and therefore he was discriminated against and made a target of victimization.

(3.) No sufficient material has been placed before us to justify the plea of mal fide by the petitioner in writ petition No. 2868 of 1979, we, therefore, see no ground for quahinh the notification on that ground.