HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3653 and 4664 of 2014 Date :7.10.2014 WP 3653 OF 2014 Between :
J Chakrapani S/o J Narayana Sircilla village and mandal, Karimnagar and others and The Land Acquisition Officer & R.D.O., Sircilla, Karimnagar and others … Petitioner … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3653 and 4664 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:
The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Karimnagar/4th respondent placed requisition dated 30.10.2008 to acquire land to an extent of Ac.29.23 guntas in various survey numbers in Sircilla village and mandal for the purpose of formation of bye-pass road from Km 0/0 to 3/8 connecting Karimnagar and Siddipet road. A revised requisition dated 4.6.2011 was placed for acquisition of Ac.30.05 ½ guntas. Out of Ac.30.05 ½ guntas, land to an extent of Ac.0.03 guntas belong to Government. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) which was published on 15.6.2011. The Land Acquisition Officer invoked urgency clause under Section 17 (4) (2) of the Act dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter draft declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 23.6.2011 and award was passed on 16.12.2013. By the said award, land to an extent of Ac.1.36 guntas in Survey No. 517 and Ac.1.7 guntas in Sruvey No. 526 was acquired. This award is challenged in these two writ petitions.
2. Sri Raghunandan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners submits that respondents are not in need of the land belonging to petitioners and far excess land was sought to be acquired than what was required for the purpose of laying a bye-pass road. He submits that petitioners have no opportunity to raise their objections before the authorities contending that their land was not required for acquisition since Section 5-A enquiry was dispensed with and urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act was invoked. Learned senior counsel further contends that even though urgency clause was invoked, 80% of the compensation payable, which is mandatory in accordance with Section 17 (3) (A) of the Act, was not paid to petitioners. Learned senior counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Land Acquisition Officer as well as requisition department contends that the requisition department was not in need of the land to the extent which petitioners are claiming and according to them only smaller extent of land was required and having realized that extent of land originally sought was not required, a request was made to the District Collector to delete the extent of land which was not required i.e., in Survey No.517, the Roads and Buildings Department required land only to an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas whereas Ac.1.36 guntas was initially notified and similarly in Survey No. 526 land to an extent of Ac.0.39 ½ guntas was only required for the purpose of road alignment, whereas originally land to an extent of Ac.1.07 guntas was notified. It was therefore requested to delete from the land acquisition proceedings the remaining extent of land which was not required.
3. As evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as on behalf of Roads and Buildings Department, it is on record that the requisition department do not need Ac.0.29 guntas in Survey No. 517 and Ac.0.7 ½ guntas in Survey No. 526 and the matter was referred to the District Collector for taking appropriate decision but so far no decision is taken.
4. Referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that since decision was already taken and award was passed, petitioners are not entitled to ask for deletion of the land to above extent from the land acquisition proceedings and the relief sought by the petitioners is not maintainable.
5. As evident from the pleadings on record, to acquire large extent of land for the purpose of forming a bye-pass road, urgency clause was invoked under Section 17 (4) of the Act but on such invoking urgency clause, as mandated by Section 17 (3) (A) of the Act, 80% of the compensation for such land as estimated by the Collector was not paid. In this case, it is categorical assertion of the petitioners that no compensation was paid to the petitioners when Section 17 of the Act was invoked. Since provision in Section 17 (3) (A) was not complied with, invoking of urgency clause becomes illegal. Further more as held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, in matters of this nature where the acquisition is for the purpose of widening of the road or laying a bye-pass road, urgency clause cannot be invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be dispensed with. Looking from both angles, the procedure followed by respondents in seeking to acquire land of the petitioners was illegal.
6. Averments made in counter affidavit would also disclose even before making appropriate assessment of the land required, a requisition was placed and proceedings for acquisition were initiated. The requisition department now comes on record and says that extent of land as intended is not required for the purpose of widening of road. This would also show total non application of mind and mechanical approach to the issue concerning dispossession of the owners from their land by compulsory acquisition procedure. It is specific assertion of the petitioners that they were not dispossessed from the land owned by them to the above extent and they continue to be in possession and enjoyment. Respondents assert that possession was immediately taken after Section 6 declaration was issued. Even assuming that the possession was taken after Section 6 declaration was issued, since mandate of Section 17 (3) (A) of the Act is not complied with, no possession could have been taken before payment of the compensation, therefore taking possession of the land without complying the said mandate, also becomes illegal.
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners fairly submitted that petitioners are confining their relief only to the extent of land which is held to be not required by the requisition department i.e., land to an extent of Ac.0.29 guntas in Survey No. 517 and an extent of Ac.0.7 ½ guntas in Survey No. 526 of Sircilla village and Mandal, karimnagar district. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the land acquisition proceedings culminating in passing of an award to an extent of Ac.0.29 guntas in Survey No. 517 and an extent of Ac.0.7 ½ guntas in Survey No. 526 of Sircilla village and Mandal, karimnagar district is held as illegal and the same is hereby set aside.
Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Sequel to the same, the miscellaneous petitions if any stands closed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:7.10.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3653 and 4664 of 2014 Date :7.10.2014