HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.P.No. 4011 of 2004 DATE: 28.04.2014 Between:
Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Temple .. Petitioner And The Government of A.P.
and three others .. Respondents O R D E R:-
The assertion of the petitioner – Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Temple is that it is the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.2.26 cents in Sy.No.325/1A situated in Yellamilli village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari and in a portion of this land i.e. Ac.0.50 cents, temples of both Lord Venkateswara and Lord Shiva were constructed and in the remaining extent of Ac.1.76 cents of land, there is a proposal for construction of Kalyana Mandapam. While so, the official respondents, visited the land in question and handed over copy of Draft Declaration in Ref.No.G2/5219/2000, dated 28.06.2000 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) declaring the intention of the Government to acquire Ac.1.76 cents of land. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents, without following mandatory procedure of law by issuing either notice under Section 4(1) of the Act or any other notices under Sections 9(1) or 10 of the Act or paying compensation to the petitioner, are trying to acquire the petitioner’s land in an extent of Ac.1.76 cents by way of dispossession and by granting house-site pattas to third parties. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the high-handed action of the official respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, as illegal and arbitrary and patent violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
On 29.03.2004, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition made a submission before this Court that until disposal of the writ petition, the respondents are not going to take possession of the land in question.
On 28.06.2004, the 4th respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer filed counter affidavit stating the respondents are committed to pay 80% of the compensation and then only take possession of the land, but so far neither any award as such was passed nor the property was taken possession of.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits invocation of urgency clause for acquisition of the land without complying with the mandatory requirement of deposit of 80% of the compensation as committed by the respondents in their counter affidavit thereby dispensing with the enquiry and calling for objections if any as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act is totally illegal and consequently the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Act is invalid.
In the light of the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also in view of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013), which mandates that in cases where no award is passed as on the date when Act.No.30 of 2013 came into force from the date of issuance of Notification, the proceedings issued under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act would lapse, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents not to acquire the petitioner’s land in an extent of Ac.1.76 cents in Sy.No.325/1A situated in Yellamilli village, Gandepalli Mandal, East Godavari without following the existing procedure of law. No order as to costs.
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 28.04.2014 bcj