THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.25284 of 2006 Between:
Mutyala Gangadhara Rakesh PETITIONER AND
1. Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (L.A.) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the draft notification issued by the 2nd respondent-District collector East Godavary District, dated 03.05.2006; order of the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, dated 21.11.2006 and the action of respondents 2 to 4 in issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 21.11.2006, as arbitrary and illegal.
2. Heard Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents and perused the material available on record.
3. The District Collector issued draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act vide Ref.G3/1977/2006, dated 03.05.2006, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner herein admeasuring Ac.1.94 situated in Sy.No.15/2B of Hasanbada Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. By invoking the provisions under Section 17(4) of the Act the Authorities dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Assailing the said draft notification, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.16543 of 2006, before this Court. This Court by way of an order dated 23.08.2006 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner herein submitted objections on 08.10.2006 before the District Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that without affording any opportunity of being heard to him, the 3rd respondent -Joint Collector, East Godavari District, rejected the objections of the petitioner vide Ref.G3/1977/2006, dated 21.11.2006. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent- District collector, East Godavari vide proceedings Ref.(G3) 1977/06, dated 21.11.2006 issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Challenging the draft notification, orders of rejection passed by the Joint Collector and Section 6 Declaration, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and justifying the impugned action. Broadly there are two contentions raised by the counsel. They are –
a) The orders dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, rejecting the objections submitted by the petitioner herein are totally without jurisdiction and that the competent authority is the District collector, but not the Joint Collector.
b) The orders rejecting the objections are not in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, and the said orders are opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Rules made thereunder.
6. In the instant case, the proposed land acquisition is for the purpose of providing house sites under Indiramma Programme. As per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, the 4th respondent-Joint Collector is not the authority competent to pass any orders on the objections filed by the petitioner. It is only the Collector of the District as defined under Section 3(c) of the Act is competent. It is pleaded in the counter affidavit that if this Court feels that the Joint Collector is not competent to issue orders, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, permission may be granted to the District Collector to consider the report of the Land Acquisition Officer afresh and to issue orders under Section 5-A on the objections filed by the petitioner herein. This Court has absolutely no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Joint Collector has no jurisdiction or power to pass any orders on the objections filed by the petitioner herein.
7. The 2nd aspect, which needs mention at this juncture, is that on the objections submitted by the petitioner and remarks offered by the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, no independent enquiry was undertaken.
8. 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 would render the proceedings invalid. It is also a settled law that the right provided under Section 5-A of the Act to an objector is akin to a fundamental right. Therefore, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be held in a routine and mechanical manner.
9. In view of the above reasons, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that the impugned proceedings passed by the Joint Collector rejecting the objections are totally without jurisdiction.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the proceedings in Ref.G3/1977/2006, dated 21.11.2006 passed by the 4th respondent-Joint Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and the draft declaration issued by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, East Godavari vide Ref.G3/1977/2006, dated 21.11.2006. However, it is open for the respondents herein to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A afresh after giving notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel, W.P.M.Ps. if any shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
17th April, 2014 Js.