HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION Nos.13924, 14058 and 14060 of 2008 Date : 04-08-2014 W.P.No.13924 of 2008 Between:
Koruprolu Ganganna S/o Late Sri Atchaiah, and three others.
… Petitioners W.P.No.14058 of 2008 Between:
Joga Ganga Rama Kumari W/o Sri Veera Venkata Ramana and two others.
… Petitioners W.P.No.14060 of 2008 Between:
Vinjamuri Rama Murthy s/o Late Sri Venkata Ramaiah and four others.
… Petitioners and The District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada and two others.
… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION Nos.13924, 14058 and 14060 of 2008 COMMON ORDER:
Since these three writ petitions involve common cause of action, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents.
3. The respondents herein pressed into service the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for the purpose of acquiring the agricultural lands of the petitioners herein situated at Pithapuram village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District for providing house-sites for the weaker sections under Indiramma Programme. The Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, in furtherance of the same, issued a draft notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and the said draft notification was published in the District Gazette on 13.02.2008 and the same was also published in the newspapers on 21.02.2008. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District issued a notice under Section 5-A of the Act, asking the petitioners herein to attend for enquiry. According to the petitioners, in response to the said notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners herein submitted their objections stating that they are all small farmers and their only avocation is agriculture and that alternative lands belonging to other big landlords are available in the village. Subsequent to the said notice, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, conducted enquiry on 27.03.2008 and submitted his remarks to the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
4. The Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari, Kakinada, by virtue of proceedings in Ref.G2/671/2008 dated 25.05.2008, rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada issued a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide Ref.G2/671/2008 dated 18.06.2008.
5. Calling in question the validity and the legal acceptability of the draft notification and the draft declaration issued under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the Act, the present writ petition has been instituted.
6. In W.P.No.13924/2008, this Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay on 01.07.2008 and in W.P.Nos.14058 and 14060 of 2008 while admitting the writ petitions, this Court granted interim stay on 02.07.2008.
7. Seeking vacation of the said interim orders granted by this Court, applications have been filed by the respondent authorities accompanied by counter affidavits in all the three writ petitions, denying the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and in the direction of justifying the impugned action.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents herein are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act as such they are liable to be set aside. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the respondent authorities did not properly consider the objections submitted by the petitioners herein and had the same been considered from proper perspective, the respondent authorities would have dropped further proceedings. The respondent authorities grossly erred in not considering the plea of the petitioners herein that they are all small farmers and their only source of livelihood is agriculture. The mode and the manner in which the District Collector rejected the objections of the petitioners herein is opposed to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court and this Court.
9. Per contra, it is contended strenuously by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act are strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act and there are absolutely no infirmities in the impugned proceedings. It is further argued by the learned Government Pleader that the District Collector, after considering the objections submitted by the petitioners herein and the remarks offered by the Land Acquisition Officer, rejected the objections submitted by the petitioners herein by assigning cogent and convincing reasons. Eventually, the learned Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
10. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the question which falls for consideration of this Court in the present writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is:
“Whether the impugned proceedings issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are sustainable and tenable and whether the same are inconsonance with the provisions of the Act?
11. The right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of this country shall be deprived of his or her property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an expropriatory legislation and the said legislation authorises the State and its instrumentalities to acquire the lands without reference to the consent of the owners of the private properties. Therefore, the provisions of this legislation are required to be adhered to and followed meticulously and strictly and any deviation from the said mandatory provisions would render the entire proceedings nugatory and invalid.
12. In the instant case, for the purpose of acquiring the lands of the petitioners herein for providing house-sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Programme, the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada, issued a draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act followed by enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
13. The right provided under Section 5-A of the Act to the owner of the property to object the acquisition is a valuable right and cannot be dealt with in a mechanical and routine manner. T h e Hon'ble apex Court held the same as a right akin to fundamental right and a human right. Therefore, a constitutional and a statutory duty is cast upon the authorities, discharging the functions under Section 5-A of the Act, to consider all the issues in an objective manner and thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances is very much required while coming to a conclusion under Section 5A of the Act. In the present case, a perusal of the proceedings of the Collector and District Magistrate vide proceedings in Ref.G2/671/2008 dated 25.05.2008, rejecting the objections of the petitioners herein, manifestly discloses that except endorsing the remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, the District Collector did not undertake such an exercise.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same is highly preposterous and unreasonable and iniquitous besides being reprehensible and the same is fatal to the case of the respondents herein. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the said endorsement dated 25.05.2008 given by the Collector and District Magistrate, rejecting the objections of the petitioners herein cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. As a consequence of this, the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act is liable to be set aside.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed in part, setting aside the draft declaration issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada vide Ref.G2/671/2008 dated 18.06.2008 and also the proceedings dated 25.05.2008 vide Ref.G2/671/2008. However, it is made clear that the respondent authorities shall hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners herein and the petitioners herein are also entitled to submit additional objections, if any, within the period stipulated in the said notice. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the authorities herein apart from other objections already available on record and the respondents can proceed thereafter, in accordance with law. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any in the writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date:04.08.2014 grk
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION Nos.13924, 14058 and 14060 of 2008 Date : 04-08-2014