MUNAGALA SAMBI REDDY Vs. DIST COLLECTOR GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common points arise in all these - writ petitions and therefore they could be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) An area of Ac. 102-63 cents of land in Koritipadu village has been acquil red, by way of a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'LA Act) dated 15-9-86 for the purpose of development of the same into plots by the Urban Development Authority, the 3rd respondent herein and for allotment of the same for construction of the houses. That is the subject-matter of challenge in these writ petitions.

(3.) Seven contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioners by Sri VLNGK Murthy; (1) The notification so issued under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act has to be quashed since the Collector is not competent to issue the same, as it has to be issued by the Government, which has been admittedly for the benefit of the Urban Development Authority. (2) The acquisition is with a profit motive and so, it is a fraud on power. (3) The wholesale acquisition of the land comprising Ac. 102-63 cents is not necessary. (4) There are Government lands in an extent of 100 acres leased out to a church and since the lease is expired, the lands could have been utilised, rendering thereby the acquisition unnecessary. (5) Initially an extent of Ac. 123-31 cents of land was proposed for acquisition, which is later reduced to Ac. 102-63 cents by deleting the land and there by showing favour in favour of some of the land owners. (6) The report under section 5-A of the LA Act has not been sent to the Government for its approval, as it has been finalised only by the District Collector and so, it is bad. (7) The enquiry under section 5-A of the LA Act is a mere farce and is not proper,