THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.10022 of 2004 DATED: 08.04.2010 Between: D. Sitaramireddy .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Kurnool, and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the trustee of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple situated at Padidempadu Village, Kurnool Mandal and District, and he states that his ancestors donated seven acres of land in Sy.Nos.58/1, 58/2 and 58/4 of Padidempadu Village, for the purpose of proper maintenance of the temple and for conducting daily poojas, and that the said lands were leased out and income derived therefrom is being utilized for maintenance of the temple. While so, the Government issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), on 18.12.1995, proposing to acquire Ac.4.64 cents of land, out of the said seven acres of land donated to the temple, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections and, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on the same day i.e. on 18.12.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8215 of 1997 before this Court, while two other writ petitions were also filed by the leaseholders of the subject land, and the petitioner came up with an offer to give his patta land in Sy.No.103 of same Village, in lieu of subject land, for no compensation. This Court, observing that the said offer has to be considered by the Collector during enquiry, allowed the said writ petitions on 26.08.1997, setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and granted liberty to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition proceedings from the stage of inviting objections as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, alleging that the respondents, in spite of aforesaid order of this Court, have not considered his offer of providing alternative land and issued fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 21.03.1998, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12091 of 1998. This Court, having opined that the offer made by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, allowed the writ petition on 14.10.1999, setting aside the Section 6 declaration dated 21.03.1998 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. The Collector was directed to issue notice to the petitioner and other interested persons and conduct enquiry, by providing reasonable opportunity to all the concerned to submit their objections, and also provide them an opportunity of being heard. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that, without conducting enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and without providing him an opportunity of hearing as per the orders of this Court dated 14.10.1999, the 1st respondent- District Collector issued the impugned declaration dated 30.12.2003, under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the District Gazette on 05.01.2004. It is his further case that, as per proviso (ii) to Section 6 of the Act, no declaration under Section 6 of the Act shall be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of 4(1) notification, but however, as he approached this Court questioning the earlier declarations, the respondents could have issued Section 6 declaration at least within a period of one year from 14.10.1999, the date on which this Court passed orders for conducting 5-A enquiry, but the respondents issued the impugned declaration after a lapse of 4½ years therefrom, which is, therefore, not valid. Petitioner also alleges that the said declaration was not published in local daily newspapers as required under the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and it is stated that notices were issued to the petitioner and other interested persons on 22.09.1997, 17.12.1999 and 01.05.2002 to attend 5-A enquiry on 20.10.1997, 10.01.2000 and 18.05.2002 respectively and the petitioner submitted objections to the proposed acquisition of the subject land and requested to acquire the alternative land in Sy.No.103 free of cost. It is further stated that the said land in Sy.No.103 is far away from the village and a Vagu exists between the village and the said land and therefore the same is not suitable for acquisition. Further, it is stated that the present declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued after a lapse of 4½ years, due to filing of writ petitions by the petitioner, and the declaration was published in two daily newspapers i.e. in Eenadu and Citizen on 13.04.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the subject land was proposed for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 18.12.1995 and on the same day declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also issued, by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. On the petitioner approaching this Court, by filing W.P.No.8215 of 1997, this Court set aside the said declaration and granted liberty to the respondents to conduct 5-A enquiry, and pursuant thereto the respondents said to have conducted 5-A enquiry and issued fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 21.03.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner again questioned the said declaration, by filing W.P.No.12091 of 1998, contending that his offer to provide alternative land for acquisition free of cost in lieu of subject land was not considered by the respondents during the enquiry, in spite of specific directions by this Court. This Court, having considered the matter in detail, set aside the said Section 6 declaration, by order dated 14.10.1999, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, the present declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.12.2003 and published on 05.01.2004 in the District Gazette. As can be seen from proviso (ii) to Section 6 of the Act, no declaration under Section 6 of the Act shall be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of 4(1) notification. In the present case, the 4(1) notification was issued in the year 1995 and the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in the year 2003 i.e. after a lapse of about 8 years from the date of 4(1) notification. Of course, the petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court questioning the declarations issued under Section 6 of the Act on two occasions and the present declaration dated 30.12.2003 was issued pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.12091 of 1998 on 14.10.1999. Even if the period spent before the Court i.e. before 14.10.1999 is excluded, the present declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued after a lapse of 4 years from 14.10.1999. The counter- affidavit filed by the respondents indicates that the 5-A enquiry was lastly conducted on 18.05.2002. It is not explained as to why the declaration was issued so belatedly i.e. at the end of the year 2003, when the 5-A enquiry was conducted in the year 2002 itself. As there is no sufficient explanation in the counter-affidavit, this Court, on previous occasion, directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents to produce relevant record before this Court, but however the same is not produced. As the respondents failed to justify their action in issuing the declaration dated 30.12.2003, under Section 6 of the Act, much belatedly after passing of orders by this Court on 14.10.1999, having conducted the 5-A enquiry on 18.05.2002, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned 4(1) notification, dated 18.12.1995, and all consequential proceedings including the impugned declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 30.12.2003, are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 8th April, 2010 IBL