JYOTHNLA SUBBA RAO Vs. COLLECTOR EAST GODAVARI KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed writ petition No. 13845/84 challenging the notification. Interim stay of dispossession was obtained on 9-10-1984. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 31-12-1985 with a direction to conduct 5-A enquiry. The 5-A notice was given to the party on 22-6-1986. Objections were filed on 9-7-86. Section 6 publication was made on 11-1-88 and the same was published in the Gazette on 30th January, 1988. The only ground that has been argued in this writ petition is that since Section 6 declaration has been made beyond three years, the notification itself has to be quashed. I am unable to agree with that contention. The petitioners filed earlier the writ petition stating that no opportunity has been given to them. The allegation itself in the writ petition is that 5-A enquiry was dispensed with and that they ought to have been given an opportunity and the High Court gave an interim direction not to dispossess them. Under those circumstances it cannot be expected that the authorities have to proceed under Sec. 5-A and also complete the proceedings. Time from the date of obtaining of stay of dispossession till the disposal of the earlier writ petition has to be excluded for the purpose of computation. Merely because the parties choose to take an interim order not to dispossess, it does not mean that they are entitled to claim that the time thus spent in the High Court would accrue to their benefit to claim that the Section 6 declaration be quashed, it being three years from the notification. In the net result, the position is that the period spent on account of the order that has been initiated by the parties and obtaining stay of dispossession, has to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the notification that has to be made under Section 6. If that period, i.e., from 9-10-1984 till 31-12-1985 has been excluded, it is within time. So, it does not suffer any vice.

(2.) Whether the land is suitable or not is a matter that has to be considered by the authorities and on the previous occasion when the party approached this Court, this court directed the officer to consider about the alternative land offered by the party. The same was considered by the authorities and it is found that that land, is situated far away from the main load. They found that it is not suitable. When the authorities on enquiry with reasonable explanation come forward that it is not suitable, it is not for this Court to interfere.

(3.) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 300/-.