THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.25247 of 2008 Between:
1. Konda Sarathchandra Venkateswara Raju, and others.
PETITIONERS AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a draft notification vide Roc.No.G1/870/2007/S.W. dated 12.05.2008 issued by the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, published in Visalandhra daily dated 18.05.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called “the Act”) and proceedings Roc.No.G1/370/2008(SW), dated 2.11.2008 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act.
2. Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents.
3. According to the petitioners they are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands admeasuring Ac.1.26 cents in S.No.249, Ac.1.26 cents in S.No.249 and Ac.2.00 in S.No.252/2 respectively of Gundugolanu village, Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District. The 2nd respondent-District Collector issued the impugned draft notification dated 12.05.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the above said lands along with the lands of certain others for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. In response to the notice R.C.No.769/2009 (B2) dated 17.05.2008, the petitioners herein submitted objections under Section 5-A of the Act and the 2nd respondent by way of proceedings Roc.No.G1/370/2008(SW), dated 2.11.2008 rejected the said objections. Challenging the said draft notification and the orders rejecting the objections, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. While ordering Rule Nisi, this Court on 17.11.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.32982 of 2008, granted interim stay. Now a vacate application in W.V.M.P.No.4774 of 2011 supported by counter is filed by the respondents, resisting the writ averments and justifying the impugned action.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the impugned proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and the respondent-authorities did not properly hold the enquiry under Section 5-A and consider the objections submitted by the petitioners in proper perspective. It is also contended by the learned counsel that alternative Government poramboke lands and also the lands of big ryots are available in the village. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the lands assigned earlier in the village to the weaker sections/landless poor were sold to the third parties and the authorities can resume the same for reassignment and that the learned counsel further contends that the respondent-authorities did not afford any personal hearing to the petitioners herein. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgment in Grandhi Narayana Rao and others v. Special Collector (Land Acquisition) Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry, E.G. District and
[1]
anr .
5. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that by following scrupulously the provisions of law and only after duly considering the objections submitted by the petitioners herein, the District Collector issued proceedings dated 2.11.2008, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners by assigning cogent and valid reasons. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no infirmity in the impugned proceedings; that there are no Government lands available and that the purpose of acquisition is public purpose.
6. 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 shall be deprived 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 to acquire the private property without reference to the consent of 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 mandatory provisions of the said legislation would render the proceedings invalid.
7. In the instant case in response to the notice of enquiry dated 17.05.2008 issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners herein submitted their objections on 30.05.2008. Petitioners herein in their objections categorically stated that the Government assigned certain lands to various people who in turn sold away the said assigned lands in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and the same can be resumed for reassignment in favour of the needy. The petitioners also stated in the objections that the Government lands are available and that there is a proposal to handover the subject lands to an educational institution. The petitioners also stated that if the proposed land is acquired they become landless. A reading of the order of rejection dated 2.11.2008, in the instant case, manifestly shows that the 2nd respondent-District Collector was taken away completely by the report of the Land Acquisition Officer and absolutely no independent assessment and consideration of objections submitted by the petitioners was undertaken. Another significant aspect which requires a mention at this juncture is that in the impugned order of rejection the District Collector categorically observed that petitioners 1 and 3 got only Ac.1.26 cents and Ac.2.00 cents respectively and they have no other lands except the same.
8. In the case reported in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of
[2]
Haryana and ors. the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 26 categorically held that – “Before acquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use the land belonging to the State for specified public purposes.”
The Apex Court in the said judgment further held that – “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.”
9. The method and manner in which the 2nd respondent considered the objections filed by the petitioners herein would also be evident from the last three paragraphs of the order of rejection, which read as under.
“The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru has further submitted that the objections raised by the 8 land owners are not maintainable and their contention to ask for compensation is nearly Rs.16 lakhs per acre and it will be decided at the time of fixation of market value of those lands proposed for acquisition.
Further, the Government have taken a policy decision to provide houses and also to provide other infrastructure facilities to the poor people in the selected model villages, so as to improve their socio-economic conditions and their well being for which the acquisition of the proposed land is inevitable.
In the circumstances stated above and as per report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, the objections of the 8 land owners are hereby rejected exempting the land belongs to Sl.No.9 and 10 for an extent of Ac.7.39 cts., and Ac.5.00 cts., respectively.”
10. Even though the petitioners herein specifically stated with regard to the earlier acquisition of the other lands, assignment of the same and the sale of the same in favour of third parties, the 2nd respondent did not touch the said aspect at all. Deprivation of property by way of compulsory acquisition is a mater of serious consequence and small the land, severe the matter. The right created under Section 5-A of the Act to objector of the acquisition is not an empty formality and on the other hand, it is substantial and valuable right having regard to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and the said right is the only protection created to a citizen to put forward his difficulties and grievances in the enquiry. The material on record clearly discloses that even as per the respondents herein, the petitioners 1 and 3 are small farmers and the Courts time and again held that to the extent possible acquisition of lands of small farmers should not be resorted to by way of compulsory acquisition.
11. Another objection raised by the petitioners during the course of enquiry is that they have given their lands to the educational institution. The District Collector while rejecting the objections simply stated that there is no educational institution on ground. The material available on record clearly and manifestly discloses that the 2nd respondent herein failed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners herein from proper perspective and in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the proceedings Roc.No.G1/370/2008 (SW), dated 2.11.2008 issued by the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, 2nd respondent herein. It is open for the respondent-authorities to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein. It is also made clear that the petitioners are entitled to file additional objections, if any. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
15th April, 2014 Js.
[1] 2014 (2) ALD 202
[2] AIR 2012 SC 468