IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION Nos.13441 & 13449 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION Nos.13441 OF 2007: Between: S.Sadananda Reddy and others. … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.Sudeep Reddy for (both the cases) Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Ravindra Yanamandra, Standing (both the cases) Counsel for HUDA for R.3 & R.4. GP for Land Acquisition for R.1,R.2 & R.5. This Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- These two Writ Petitions are filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to acquire the lands belonging to the petitioners in pursuance of the notification, dated 14-7-2004, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing it is submitted by Sri S.Sudeep Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5; and Sri Ravinda Yanamandra, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 3 and 4, that the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy Vs. Collector, Ranga Reddy District[1], wherein this Court held that the impugned notification is vague regarding the purpose for which the lands were proposed to be acquired and, accordingly, the same was set aside. These Writ Petitions, therefore, deserve to be allowed. However, at the hearing, Sri Ravindra Yanamandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, submitted that the petitioners, except petitioner No.3 in Writ Petition No.13441 of 2007 and petitioner No.5 in Writ Petition No.13449 of 2007, have given their consent for acquisition after filing of the Writ Petitions and that, therefore, they are not entitled to the same relief as was granted in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy (1 supra). The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, strenuously, contended that once this Court has set-aside the notification as vague, the respondents cannot be permitted to proceed with the acquisition on the basis of such a vague notification and that the consents given by the majority of the petitioners notwithstanding, the respondents are not entitled to proceed with the acquisition in view of the ratio laid down in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy (1 supra). The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan[2] for the proposition that no person can waive his fundamental rights. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the consents given by the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions the respondents cannot be permitted to go ahead with the proposed acquisition, I do not find merit therein. This submission of the learned counsel is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Basheshar Nath (2 supra). The said judgment is an authority for the proposition that the doctrine of waiver cannot be pressed against a citizen in relation to enforcement of his fundamental rights. In the present case, the issue pertains to acquisition of the petitioners’ properties by the respondents by using the power of eminent domain. The notification issued by the respondents was set-aside by this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy (1 supra) mainly on the reasoning that the purpose mentioned in the notification, viz., “development of township and future projects” is too vague and that unless the notifications indicate the nature of the township and the purported future projects, it is not possible for the land owners to file meaningful objections. This Court never held that the notification was in violation of any one’s fundamental right. The very essence of the judgment in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy (1 supra) is that vagueness or lack of clarity in the ‘purpose’ of the proposed acquisition has disabled the land owners to effectively object to the proposed acquisition. In the present cases, the notification cannot be invalidated in the case of the petitioners, who gave their consents, on the ratio in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy (1 supra), because, by giving their consent, they have waived their right to raise objections to the ‘purpose’ for which their lands were proposed to be acquired. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioners waiving their fundamental rights by giving their consents and, accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel is rejected. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 has fairly stated that the project with the left over land has become unviable and, at present, there is no proposal for establishing the township. He, however, stated that in the event the respondents seek to go ahead with the project in future, they may be permitted to utilize the petitioners’ lands. Inasmuch as the whole project itself is stated to have become unworkable and unviable, there is no justification to take the lands of the petitioners alone on the basis of the consents given by them, more so, when the petitioners are seeking to go back on those consents following the judgment of this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy (1 supra). Unless respondent Nos.2 and 3 want to go ahead with the project, it is not just and proper to deny the petitioners of their lands on the strength of the consents given by them. In these peculiar facts, both the Writ Petitions are allowed following the judgment in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy (1 supra) in the following terms: 1) The notifications in respect of acquisition of the lands belonging to petitioner No.3 in Writ Petition No.13441 of 2007 and petitioner No.5 in Writ Petition No.13449 of 2007 are quashed; 2) insofar as the lands belonging to the remaining petitioners are concerned, respondent No.2 and 3 shall decide as to whether they would like to go ahead with the proposed project, viz., establishment of township, within three months from today; 3) in the event they decide and proceed with the establishment of township, they shall intimate the same to the petitioners and, in such an event, they shall be free to utilize the lands subject to the terms and conditions upon which the petitioners have given their consents; and 4) conversely, if either they decide not to proceed with the establishment of township or they fail to intimate the same to the petitioners within the above stipulated time, the lands of these petitioners also stand excluded from the purview of acquisition and thereafter the petitioners shall be free to utilize their lands by exercising absolute rights over the same. As a sequel, interim orders dated 28-6-2007 are vacated and WPMP No.16847 of 2007 and WVMP No.1744 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.13441 of 2007 and WPMP No.16858 of 2007 and WVMP No.1491 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.13449 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:18-7-2011 MNR [1]) 2008(5) ALT 233=2008(5) ALD 302 [2]) AIR 1959 SC 149