IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.2124 of 2007 Between: Kodali Adi Lakshmi, W/o.Late Ranganayakulu, aged about 80 years, R/o.Bhattiprolu (Vill & Mandal, Guntur dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur district and another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Court issued rule nisi on 1-3-2007 and granted interim stay as prayed for. W.V.M.P.No.1156/2007 was filed to vacate the said interim order. But however on 21-01-2009 this Court made the interim order absolute and directed the writ petition to appear in the list for final hearing. Thus the matter is coming up for final hearing. 2. The present writ petition is filed praying for appropriate relief to declare the notification under Section 4(1) and the notice under Section 5-A, dated 21-11-2006 issued by the first respondent in Rc.No.1445/2006-A and Section 6 declaration dated 12-01-2007 issued by the second respondent in Rc.No.3639/2006/G2 are invalid and set aside the same by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ and pass another suitable orders. 3. Initially an affidavit was filed in support of the writ petition and a better supplemental affidavit was filed by the writ petitioner. Counter affidavit had been filed in detail by the respondents. 4. Sri Chandraiah Naidu representing Mr.Srinivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing writ petitioner would maintain that at no point of time there was service of notice on the writ petitioner since the writ petitioner was residing elsewhere and even otherwise when objection had been raised by the writ petitioner, the respondents are bound to consider such objections in accordance with law, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) cannot be an empty formality and the personal hearing to be given and the objections raised to be considered effectively since this is a matter which is more concerned with the life of this old woman, aged more than 80 years. Even otherwise, whether the objections had been considered or not also within the knowledge of the writ petitioner since nothing had been communicated in this regard and virtually the whole affair is being completed just making an empty formality by virtue of which the petitioner is put to serious loss. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition had taken this Court through the counter affidavit and would maintain that she is a rich lady and she is also financially sound and proposed acquisition would not affect her livelihood in any way and hence the objections raised being not tenable, the said objections were not accepted. The learned A.G.P. also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit in detail and would maintain that in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit, the writ petition to be dismissed. 6. Heard the Counsel and perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition i.e., the supplemental/better affidavit and also the averments made in the counter affidavit as well. 7. The writ petitioner was aged about 80 years even as on the date of filing of the writ petition. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she is having Ac.4-03 cents dry land in Sy.No.367/1A in Kanagala village of Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District, after giving up her daughter’s half share in the total extent of Ac.8-06 cents by a registered document dt.05-04-1971. Though the Revenue Authorities did not yet effect this change in Pattadar Passbooks pursuant to this document, she is now having Ac.4-03 cents only. Earlier she voluntarily surrendered Ac.0-50 cents as excess land under Land Reforms Act. 8. Further it is stated that on enquiries she came to know that at the instance of some local political leaders bout 230 persons were made to represent to the District Collector for providing house sites to them. She learnt that several of them are ineligible as they are owning pucca houses and some are having house sites of their own and some others are nonresidents and some of them are dead persons. 9. Further it is averred that there was a proposal to acquire the land of Ac.9-00 belongs to the temple in Rc.No.124/2006 which land is adjacent to the road and more suitable for this house sites purpose, but later the Authorities due to extraneous considerations changed that proposal and they sought to acquire Ac.3-50 cents belonging to one Abdul Ahmed and another piece of land adjacent to it in Rc.No.128/2006. Thought the land of Abdul Ahmed was quite adjacent to the Panchayat Road with vide facing to road that was also given up due to the pressures and other considerations and now the Authorities proposed to acquire Ac.3-03 cents of her land and another’s land in Sy.No.376/1B, 10. It is also averred that the petitioner was not aware of all these developments and proposals as she was residing in Battiprolu Village taking treatment there in Nursing Home. Though her land is land locked and in the interior portion and though better suitable lands adjacent to the village are available, taking an extent of Ac.0-18 cents of land from Abdul Ahmed as a passage to reach her land, the Authorities are proceeding to take possession of her land which is in her possession and enjoyment. After this acquisition she will be left out with only one acre land which cannot be put to proper use and would not attract any proper lessee for that bit. She would be deprived of her livelihood if almost all her land is thus taken away. Besides effecting her right to life and livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this taking of land changing the proposals thrice is also arbitrary and illegal and whimsical. 11. It is also stated that when the Revenue Inspector came to Battiprolu to record her statement on 20-12-2006, she came to know of this earlier proceedings and changes and the attempt to acquire her land. She came to know that 5A enquiry notices were issued to all the concerned three persons whose lands were sought to be acquired, but she could not receive the same as she was residing in Battiprolu by that time and so she could not put forth her valid tenable objections against the acquisition of her land. Now she came to know that in spite of her statement recorded by the Revenue Inspector that she could not receive Section 5A notice as she was not in Kanagala Village but residing in Battiprolu for her treatment and requested the Revenue Authorities in that statement to do justice to her and drop her land from acquisition proceedings, as that land alone was her livelihood, the Collector issued draft declaration dt.12-01-2007 without considering her explanation and requests in her statement recorded by Revenue Inspector on 20-12-2006. 12. Further it is stated that under Section 3 of the A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, no agricultural land in the State shall be put to non agricultural purpose without prior permission of the Competent Authority i.e., the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. She learn that the Competent Authority has not granted permission in this case to change the nature of her agriculture land. On this ground also the 5A notification and Section 6 declaration under Land Acquisition Act are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 13. Further specific stand had been taken that the delegation of powers by the Collector to the Revenue Divisional Officer to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 6 declaration is also bad and on this ground also this Section 6 declaration is liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition and also obtained interim stay as already aforesaid. 14. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it had been narrated in para 3 as hereunder: 15. The brief facts of the case are that Kanagala village of Cherukupalli Mandal has been selected as Adarsha village under 1st phase of Indiramma programme and 205 beneficiaries were selected for provision of house sites in all categories by conducting Grama Sabhas in the village. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Cherukupalli has proposed an extent of Ac.8.55 cents in S.Nos.376-1A etc., of Kangala village for the said purpose. The land to an extent of Ac.3-21 cents in S.No.376-1A etc., belongs to the petitioner was also covered in this proposal. After verification of the proposal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali has submitted D.N. under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act vide Rc.No.1445/2006/A, dt.23-09-2006 to the Collector, Guntur for approval. The District Collector, Guntur has approved the Draft Notification on 24-10-2006 and the same was published in Guntur District Gazette, Extraordinary, Local No.110 dated 15-11-2006 at page No.15. The said notification was also published in two local news papers namely (1) Andhraprabha Daily dt.05-11-2006 and Ushodayam daily dt.06-11-2006. The extract of D.N. was also got published in the locality as well as in local offices on 07-11-2006 in the prescribed manner. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali is to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly the notices under Section 5-A of the Act was issued on 21-11-2006 calling objections if any, from the interested persons within 15 days from the date of service of the notices. They have also offered to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 13-12-2006 at 11:00 A.M. to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their objections. The said notices were got published and served on the interested persons in the prescribed manner. Smt.Kodali Adilakshmi, W/o.(late) Ranganayakulu, R/o.Bhattiprole village and Mandal has filed objections in her statement dated 20-12-2006 and requested to exempt her land from the proposed acquisition claiming that she got Ac.8.06 cents of agricultural land and that is the only source of income. The contents of her statements have got enquired into and found that Smt.Kodali Adilakshmi, W/o.Ranganayakulu is residing in Bhattiprole with her daughter at present. She is having an extent of Ac.8.06 cents of land and Pattadar Pass Book bearing No.443694 was issued by the Revenue Department for the said land in her favour. She is financially by sound and the proposed acquisition could not effect to her livelihood. Keeping in view of the above, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act together with the record of enquiry on the objections raised by the petitioner have been submitted to the Collector, Guntur in this office Rc.No.1445/06/A dt.29-12-2006. After perusal of the same, the District Collector, Guntur has approved the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide Progs.Rc.No.3639/2006/G2, dated 12-01-2007 and got published in the Guntur District Gazettee, Extraordinary, Local No.6 dt.27-01-2007 at Page Nos.1 and 2. The Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published in the local news papers namely 1. Eenadu Daily dated 29-01-2007 and 2. Udaya Bharatam Daily dt.26-01-2007. The extract of the Draft Declaration was also got published in the locality as well as in the local offices on 27-01-2007 properly. At this stage, Smt.Kodali Adilakshmi, W/o.(late) Ranganayakulu has filed the present writ petition before this Court and obtained interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.2716/07 in W.P.No.2124 of 2007 dt.01-03-2007. 16. Further it is stated that as per the village accounts, the petitioner is having an extent of Ac.8.06 cents of land and pattadar pass book bearing No.443694 which had been issued by the Revenue Department in her name. Further specific stand had been taken that the respondents had observed all the formalities under Section 4 & 5 of the Act properly. The District Collector, Guntur had approved the D.N. under Section 4(1) of the Act and got it published in Guntur District Gazettee, Extraordinary, Local No.110 dated 15-11-2006 at page No.15. The said notification was also published in two local news papers. The extract of D.N. was also got published in the locality as well as in local offices on 07-11- 2006 in the prescribed manner. The District Collector, Guntur has authorized the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. Accordingly, notices under Section 5-A of the Act were published on 21-11-2006 calling objections if any, from the interested persons within 15 days from the date of service of the notices. He had also offered to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 13-12-2006 at 11:00 A.M. to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their objections. The said notices were got published in the village as well as local offices in the prescribed manner and served on the interested persons. 17. It is pertinent to note that in the counter affidavit specific stand had been taken on notice under Section 5-A of the Act could not be served on the petitioner in person as she is not residing in Kanagala Village of Cherukupalli Mandal. With a view to give an opportunity for filing of her objections, the Revenue Authorities got enquired about her address particulars and enquired her personally on 20-12-2006 at Bhattiprole village and Mandal where she is residing with her daughter. After thorough enquiry on the contents of her objections statement, it is concluded that she is a rich ryot having Ac.8.06 cents of land in her favour. She is financially sound and the proposed acquisition could not effect to her livelihood. 18. Further it is stated that it is true that the land to an extent of Ac.6.85 cents was proposed earlier for this purpose, out of which an extent of Ac.2-15 cents belongs to the Endowment Department and the remaining is patta land. In obedience to the interim directions of this court in respect of Endowment lands, the Tahsildar, Cherukupalli has suggested to propose alternative patta lands for house sites purpose. Accordingly, the Tahsildar has proposed alternative proposal in two bits, meanwhile, Sri Abdul Ahmad, S/o.Sattar has represented the District Collector, Guntur for elimination of his land in Sy.No.378-2A3 and 2B measuring Ac.3.40 cents which was intended for construction of Training Center for minorities and also approached this court in the matter. This court dismissed the writ petition No.17752 of 2006 at the stage of admission since no acquisition proceedings have been initiated. In the above circumstances only, the alternative land including the petitioners land was proposed again for grant of house sites to the beneficiaries under Indiramma programme. Except the above, there is no other motivation as conducted by the petitioner. 19. Further specific stand had taken that all the formalities had been observed under Section 5-A of the Act after publication of notices under Section 5-A of the Act were issued on 21-11-2006 calling objections if any from the interested persons. They had also offered to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 13- 12-2006 at 11:00 A.M. to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their objections. Despite publication of the notices under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner has not filed her objections to the proposed acquisition. The notice under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act could not be served on the petitioner in person as she is not residing in Kanagala village of Cherukupally mandal. The same stand taken earlier had been reiterated. Further it is stated that there are no valid grounds to interfere and there is no possibility to enquire Endowment Lands in the light of interim orders made by this court in such circumstances the writ petition dismissed. 20. On a careful reading of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, certain contradictory stands in fact had been taken. Be that as it may, it may be that there was no possibility of personal hearing since the petitioner is not residing in the village proper. However, the alleged objections said to have been made by the writ petitioner, a copy of the same is placed before this Court. It is not clear whether any personal hearing as such had been given and whether these objections had been considered and appropriate decision had been taken in this regard. It is needless to say that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is not an empty formality and personal hearing to be given to the writ petitioner. It may be that the writ petitioner is an old lady but atleast a representative of the writ petitioner to be heard in this regard. In the light of the facts and circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be found fault in any way but however even in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also a copy of the objections which had been placed before this Court and further in the light of the specific stand taken that the personal service of the notice could not be effected on the writ petitioner because of her absence in the village, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity and let the writ petitioner file further objections if any and let the respondents conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act fixing a date of receiving such further objections if any to be filed apart from the objections already filed if any and decide the matter in accordance with law. As already aforesaid, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as such cannot be found fault, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to be conducted in accordance with law. It is needless to say that the subsequent proceedings are unsustainable, inasmuch as, this Court is giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file additional objections if any apart from the objections already filed at the stage of 5-A enquiry. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above. At this stage, a request had been made to fix some time. The writ petitioner is at liberty to file such additional objections if any in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and let the respondents take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of four weeks thereof. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 16, 2009. PN/SMR THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.2124 of 2007 September 16, 2009