THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI W.P.No.5208 of 2007 Between:
1. Kacherlakota Annamaraju and others PETITIONERS AND
1. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, West Godavari District, and another RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the draft notification issued by the District collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, the 1st respondent herein, vide proceedings Roc.No.F5/SW/26/06, Dated 7.02.2007, published in ‘Avinithiki Sankellu’, dated 13.02.2007, as being illegal, arbitrary and unauthorised.
2. Heard Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are essential for disposal of the present writ petition are as under:
The respondent authorities pressed into service the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, situated in Sy.No.129 of Peddavamu Village, Tallapudi Mandal, West Godavari District for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections. By invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Calling in question the validity and legal acceptability of the said draft notification, dated 7.02.2007 present writ petition came to be filed.
4. This Court while issuing Rule Nisi on 15.03.2007 granted interim stay of all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioners from the subject lands, in W.P.M.P.No.6641 of 2007. Responding to Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit deposed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has been filed denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the draft notification, which is impugned in the writ petition, is highly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further contended that the publication of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the paper called ‘Avinitiki Sankellu’, which has no wide circulation, is in contravention of the mandatory requirements as stipulated under Section 4 of the Act. It is nextly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very invocation of the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is bad since the acquisition in the instant case does not involve imminent urgency for invoking the said provision of law.
6. Per contra, it is strenuously argued by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that in view of the urgency involved in the matter, the respondent-authorities invoked the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further contended that there is neither illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned proceedings, and in the absence of the same, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution which, in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of his/her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an exproprietary legislation, which authorises and empowers the State and its instrumentalities to acquire the private property without reference to the consent of the land owners. Therefore, the provisions of the said legislation are required to be adhered to and followed scrupulously and meticulously and any deviation from the said mandatory provisions of law would undoubtedly render the proceedings invalid. It is also a settled law that the right provided under Section 5-A of the Act to the land owner is akin to a fundamental right. Therefore, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be brushed aside in a routine and mechanical manner.
8. The issue in the present writ petition is required to be examined in the light of the above aspects. As per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities to publish the draft notification in the official Gazette and in two daily newspapers having circulation in that locality, of which at least one shall be in the regional language in addition to the publication in the locality. The paper publication in the daily newspapers, as stipulated in the above provision of law, is not merely a formality, as such, the publication should necessarily be in a widely circulated newspapers. In the instant case, the respondent authorities published the draft notification in a daily paper called ‘Avinitiki Sankellu’, which has no wide circulation in the locality as per the counsel for the petitioner which is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. On this count, the notification under Section 4(1) is liable to be set aside for want of proper paper publication.
9. The right created under Section 5-A of the Act for the owners of the properties is a human right and is a right akin to fundamental right as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of pronouncements. Such a right cannot be taken away in a mechanical and routine manner. In the instant case, the purpose of acquisition is for providing house sites to weaker sections. This Court is of the opinion that there is absolutely no imminent urgency for invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act since the purpose of acquisition is only for house sites. On this count also the impugned action on the part of the respondent-authorities is liable to be deprecated.
10. For the aforesaid reasons this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the draft notification issued by the 1st respondent vide Roc.No.F5/SW/26/06, Dated 7.02.2007. However, this order will not preclude the authorities from initiating the proceedings afresh in accordance with law in the event of there being any necessity. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
7th October, 2014 Js.