THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION Nos.13743 and 13800 of 2008 Date :20-06-2014 Between: W.P.No.13743 of 2008 L.Hymavathi W/o. Late Appala Naidu, age: 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Mahasingi Village, Kottur Post, Kottur Mandal, Srikakulam District and others.
… Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents
W.P.No.13800 of 2008
Marri Rama Krishna S/o. Ganapathi, age: 32 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Morri Street, Korasada Village, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District and Others.
… Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION Nos.13743 and 13800 of 2008
COMMON ORDER:
Since these two writ petitions are similar and as the cause of action is also the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two writ petitions by way of this common order.
2. These two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners situated in various survey numbers of Karlam grampanchayat, Mahasinghi Village, Kottur Mandal, Srikakulam District.
3. Heard Sri Krishna Rao Modhalavalasa, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents apart from perusing the material available on record.
4. According to the petitioners, they are small landless poor agriculturists and they own various extents of land in different survey numbers and the said lands are situated at Karlam grampanchayat, Mahasinghi Village, Kottur Mandal, Srikakulam District. The respondent authorities pressed into service the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), for the purpose of acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for rehabilitating the people who lost their houses under Vamsadhara Project. In furtherance of the same, the District Collector, Srikakulam District issued a draft notification dated 07.12.2007 under Section 4 (1) of the Act, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners. By invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act the enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with.
5. Challenging the said draft notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act, petitioners herein earlier filed W.P.Nos.1957 and 5012 of 2008 before this Court and this Court on 05.12.2008 and 11.03.2008 disposed of the same, quashing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the extent of dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and further directed to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Subsequently, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held and the petitioners submitted their objections. Subsequently, the District Collector, Srikakulam, issued a draft declaration in Proceedings RC.No.3432/2005 G5 dated 02.06.2008. The complaint precisely in these writ petitions is that the authorities did not properly address the grievance of the petitioners and issued draft declaration.
6. In the above background, the present writ petitions have been filed assailing the proceedings initiated by the respondents under the Act.
7. This Court, while issuing Rule Nisi, granted stay of dispossession on 27.06.2008 and 30.06.2008 in these two writ petitions, respectively, and subsequently the said orders were made absolute and are subsisting till date.
8. Responding to the Rule Nisi, counter affidavits have been filed, denying the averments in the writ affidavits and in the direction of justifying the impugned acquisition.
9. It is precisely contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are small farmers and the acquisition of their lands is highly unreasonable and arbitrary and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that alternative Government lands are available, as such, the very acquisition of the private lands of the petitioners is unreasonable and impermissible.
10. Per contra, it is strenuously argued by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the plea of small farmers does fail as there is no prohibition under the Act for acquiring the land of small farmers. It is also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that mere availability of alternative lands cannot be a ground to invalidate the land acquisition proceedings.
11. In the instant case, there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact even as per the counters, that the petitioners are the small farmers and their avocation is agriculture. It is also significant to note that the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Hiranandalam manifestly shows the availability of Government lands in Sy.Nos.301, 302, 304, 306-3, 306-6, 306-8 to 37, 307, 308, 312-7, 372-11, 372-12, 375-8 and 376-6 admeasuring a total extent of Ac.84.48 cents. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent authorities refers only to an extent of Ac.20.67 cents in Sy.Nos.372-11, 372-12, 374-6 and 375-6 and there is no reference of other survey numbers and the extent as indicated in the certificate issued by the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, Hiranandalam.
12. The points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are no longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court and this Court.
13. While dealing with the issue of acquisition of the private agricultural lands when Government lands are available, the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of RAGHBIR SINGH SEHRAWAT v. STATE OF HARYANA[1] at paragraph 26 held as under:
“26. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to observe that in recent past, various State Governments and their functionaries have adopted very casual approach in dealing with matters relating to the acquisition of land in general and the rural areas in particular and in a large number of cases, the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) with or without the aid of Section 17 and the consequential actions have been nullified by the Courts on the ground of violation of the mandatory procedure and the rules of natural justice. The disposal of cases filed by the landowners and Ors. take some time and the resultant delay has great adverse impact on implementation of the projects of public importance. of course, the delay in deciding such cases may not be of much significance when the State and its agencies want to confer benefit upon private parties by acquiring land in the name of public purpose. It if difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate as to why the State and its instrumentalities resort to massive acquisition of land and that too without complying with the mandate of the statute. As noted by the National Commission on Farmers, the acquisition of agricultural land in the name of planned development or industrial growth would seriously affect the availability of food in future. After independence, the administrative apparatus of the State has not spent enough investment in the rural areas and those who have been doing agriculture have not been educated and empowered to adopt alternative sources of livelihood. If land of such persons is acquired, not only the current but the future generations are ruined and this is one of the reasons why the farmers who are deprived of their holdings commit suicide. It also appears that the concerned authorities are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit etc. They do not realise that having one's own house is a lifetime dream of majority of population of this country. Economically affluent class of society can easily afford to have one or more houses at any place or locality in the country but other sections of the society find it extremely difficult to purchase land and construct house. Majority of people spend their lifetime savings for building a small house so that their families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity. Therefore, it is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive such persons of their houses by way of the acquisition of land in the name of development of infrastructure or industrialisation. Similarly, some people set up small industrial unit after seeking permission from the competent authority. They do so with the hope of generating additional income for their family. If the land on which small units are established is acquired, their hopes are shattered. Therefore, before acquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes. If the acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the concerned authorities must strictly comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice.”
14. While dealing with the acquisition of the agricultural lands of small farmers this Court in the case of P.VENKAIAH AND OTHERS v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR , GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND
[2]
ANOTHER , this Court at paragraphs 6 to 8, held as under:
“Right to Property is a constitutional right as enshrined in Article e 300-A of Const i tut i on of Indi a, which mandates that no citizen shall be deprived of his/her property except in accordance with law. Since the Land Acquisition Act is an exproprietary legislation, the object and intention of the legislature and the provisions of the said legislation are required to be adhered to scrupulously. Any deviation from the object behind the said legislation would render the entire proceedings invalid and nugatory.
Admittedly, in the present writ petition, even as per the respondents herein, the petitioners herein are holding small extents of land and their avocation is only agriculture.
It needs to be remembered that the farmers are the backbone of our Indian economy. With the process of urbanisation, the agriculture is getting crippled day by day and the number of farmers growing the food grains is also getting diminished. Therefore, to the extent of possibility, barring the inevitable situations, the acquisition of agricultural lands, thereby diminishing the food production should be averted. The indiscriminate and unreasonable acquisition may sometimes also lead to unrest in the society. This compulsory acquisition of the private properties sometimes lead to displacing the farmers from their native villages and it would lead to severance of bond with the village and it may disturb the social network also and may ultimately result in unwarranted and unhealthy excessive urbanisation. It is also imperative on the part of the State and the authorities functioning under the State to take into account the plight of the farmers, who solely depend on agriculture and who sacrifice their blood and sweat in the process of growing food grains for the nation. It is al so equally essential to note that in the process of providing house sites to the poor, the small and marginal farmers should not be rendered landless and shelter less unless such acquisition is imminently inevitable.”
15. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred judgments, the contentions of the respondents on the issue of small farmers and alternative lands cannot be sustained. The facts and circumstances and the legal position in these cases undoubtedly drive this Court towards unhesitating conclusion that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent authorities in acquiring the lands of the petitioners who are admittedly small farmers in the name of rehabilitating others thereby rendering the petitioners landless which ultimately effects their livelihood and their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
16. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down in the above referred judgments, writ petitions are allowed and the impugned acquisition proceedings are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 20-06-2014 grk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION Nos.13743 and 13800 of 2008 Date : 20th June, 2014 Grk
[1] AIR 2012 SC 468
[2] 2014 (3) ALD 635