THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.Nos.9709 of 2007 Date : 9-12-2009 Between : Yanadi Ramachandraiah .. Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer, Tirupathi Chittoor District and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.Nos.9709 of 2007 ORDER: 1. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Sri P.Roy Reddy and Dr.J.Vijaya Lakshmi, Counsel representing the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition had been filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioner mentioned in to the Annexure to the notification No.88- S/2006, dated 17-11-2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short hereinafter referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is the case of the petitioner she is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.10.44 cents of various survey numbers of Mallavaripalayam village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. It is her further case that the State in exercise of its eminent domain power had issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 17-11-2006 and a reading of the said notification it is clear that the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired along with the lands of other agriculturists. It is further stated that in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that an enquiry was conducted but the petitioner was not asked to submit any objections in writing and she was only asked to quote the rate of each acre and accordingly the petitioner quoted @ Rs.30 lakhs per acre. Further it is stated that the respondents had not followed the procedure under Section 5-A of the Act in its letter and spirit. The respondents were to call for the objections from the agriculturists whose lands are sought to be acquired but they had not done so and on this ground alone the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be interdicted and set aside by this Court. 4. It is also further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that without conducting the enquiry in terms of Section 5- A of the Act, the respondents had notified the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act and hence the same is also contrary to law and therefore the proceedings initiated under the Act are liable to be set aside. Further it is stated that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the subsequent notifications issued by the respondents are contrary to A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion into Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act 2006. Since there are teak wood trees, red sanders and mango trees in the lands of the petitioner which are sought to be acquired there is embargo to acquire under the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002. 5. Further it is also stated that for constitution of special economic zones under the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act 2005, he procedure mentioned under Section 3 of the said Act has to be followed. The 4th respondent is a Government company. The Government in exercise of its eminent domain power cannot deprive persons of their land and create special economic zones and give the said land to the Government company i.e., the 4th respondent and the Government company who in turn sells the land for profit which is not the purpose for which the provisions of the Act had been incorporated. There is a purpose behind the Act and the very purpose is defeated in the manner in which the respondents are acquiring the land to be sold eventually by the 4th respondent for a profit and the same is nothing but trading done by the 4th respondent under the guise of special economic zones for the benefit of the 5th respondent. 6. It is further stated that so far as the petitioner’s land is concerned, there are mango, teak wood, red sanders and palm trees and by virtue of the acquisition of the said land where trees are existing the trees would be removed and the same is contrary to A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act 2002. The petitioner is in possession of the property and in the event of dispossession from her valuable property, her rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India would be at jeopardy. Several Grounds also had been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, 6 and 7, several of the averments had been denied. It is stated that consequent to the requisitions received from the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati action had been initiated under the Act to acquire lands in Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal vide Notification Nos.76/2006 and 77/2006 for the extents of Ac.54.60 and 50.88 respectively including the lands of Ac.10.44 belonging to the writ petitioner. It is further stated that the lands situated in Mallavaripalem village had been acquired under the Act as hereunder:- Sy.Nos.290/4, 290/5, 290/6, 290/7, 290/8 and 290/9 – Notification No.76.2006 It is stated that the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati had placed a requisition vide letter No.ZO/TPT/LA/2006, 6/18 dated 23-2-2006 for acquisition of lands to an extent of Ac.54-60 situated in S.Nos.277/1 etc., of Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone) and the draft declaration proposals under Section 4(1) of the Act were submitted to the Collector, Chittoor by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati vide letter No.F/665/2006 dated 13-3-2006. The Collector, Chittoor had approved the DN proposals vide proceedings in Roc.G2/3674/2006 dated 18-3-2006 under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was published in A.P. State Gazette Extraordinary issue No.77/2006 dated 18-3-2006. The contents of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act were published in two daily Newspapers viz., Eenadu on 25-3-2006 and in Visalandhra on 26-3-2006. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 24-4-2006 and therefore it is not correct to state that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 17-11-2006 relating to the instant case of acquisition. 8. It is further stated that no objections had been received in response to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette, Newspapers and in the locality within the stipulated time as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act i.e., within 30 days from the date of the notification and hence the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was not warranted. Therefore, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was submitted to the Collector, Chittoor vide Roc.F/665/2006 dated 7-11-2006 and the same was also approved by the Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings in Roc.G2/3674/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The Draft Declaration was also published in the A.P. State Gazette No.77/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The contents of the Draft Declaration was published in two daily Newspapers viz., Vaartha and Andhra Prabha on 12-11-2006. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 20-11-2006. The Award enquiry was conducted from 21-12-2006 to 24-12-2006 at M.P. Ele. School, Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal duly publishing notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act and service of notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act on the interested persons. The compensation amount awarded under Section 11(2) of the Act in Award No.76/2007 dated 18-3-2007 for the lands contended by the writ petitioner in to the Writ Petition is as hereunder:- Land Details : Surve No. and S.D. No. Classification Extent (In Acres) 294/4 Dry 0.15 290/5 Dry 0.28 290/6 Dry 0.24 290/7 Dry 0.11 290/8 Dry 0.13 290/9 Dry 0.09 Total 1.00 Tree Details: Survey No. and S.D. No. Name of the tree No. of trees Tree value including all statutory benefits 290/4 Neem 1 674.76 Red Sandal 1 1254.03 Teak 1 1249.50 290/5 Mango 7 4258.49 Mango 1 608.36 Palmyrah 1 343.64 Tandra 1 674.40 290/7 Mango 2 1216.71 290/8 Teak 2 340.80 Total 17 Rs.10,620.69 It is also further stated that Sri Yanadi Ramachandraiah s/o. Papaish is the notified enjoyer for the above extent of 1.00 acre of dry land. He had attended the Award enquiry on 17-12-2006 and stated that these lands are self acquired and pattadar pass books had been issued vide 1B Khata No.31. These lands are in his possession and enjoyment and no objections had also been received at the time of enquiry. Further, the public notices on Award enquiry had been issued before the Award enquiry in the daily Newspapers published from Tirupathi, Nellore and Chennai on 30-12-2006 in Eenadu, The Hindu and Dinathandhi and on 15-12-2006 in Vaartha. In addition, public notices were also issued after the award enquiry on 30-12-2006 in Tirupati, Nellore and Chennai editions of Eenadu, Vaartha, The Hindu calling for objections. Despite all the notices aforesaid, no counter claims had come with regard to the lands mentioned above and hence it was construed that Sri Yanadi Ramachandraiah s/o.Papaiah is the only interested person in these lands. 9. Further it is stated that the Panchayat Secretary, Mallavaripalem had confirmed the ownership of the above lands in favour of Sri Yanadi Ramachandraiah s/o.Papaiah. No objections had been received during the award enquiry and hence the compensation for the aforesaid lands of Rs.2,50,000-00/- + Tree value of Rs.10,620- 69, i.e., total compensation of Rs.2,60,620-69 was ordered to be paid to Yanadi Ramachandraiah s/o.Papaiah. The awardee/petitioner had received the said compensation by way of Banker’s cheque. 10. Further it is stated that in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.295/1, 295/2, 295/3, 295/23, 296/2, 296/3, 296/4, 296/9, 296/10, 298/1, 298/2, 298/3, 298/4, 298/5, 298/6, 298/7, 298/8, 298/9, 298/10, 298/11, 298/12, 298/13, 298/14, 299/1, 299/4 covered by notification No.77/2006, the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati had placed a requisition vide letter No.ZO/TPT/LA/2007, 7/18 dated 23-2- 2006 for acquisition of lands to an extent of Ac.50/88 situated in Sy.Nos.292/1 etc., of Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone) including the lands belonging to the writ petitioner and the draft declaration proposals under Section 4(1) of the Act were submitted to the Collector, Chittoor by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati vide letter No.F/665/2006 dated 13-3-2006. The Collector, Chittoor had approved the DN proposals vide proceedings in Roc.G2/3674/2006 dated 18-3-2006 under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was published in A.P. State Gazette Extraordinary issue No.77/2006 dated 18-3-2006. The contents of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act were published in two daily Newspapers viz., Eenadu on 25-3-2006 and in Visalandhra on 26-3- 2006. The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 24-4-2006. However, no objections had been received in response to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette, Newspapers and in the locality within the stipulated time as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act i.e., within 30 days from the date of the notification and hence the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not warranted. Therefore, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was submitted to the Collector, Chittoor vide Roc.F/665/2006 dated 7-11-2006 and the same was also approved by the Collector, Chittoor vide proceedings in Roc.G2/3674/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The Draft Declaration was also published in the A.P. State Gazette No.77/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The contents of the Draft Declaration was published in The substance of the notification was published in the locality on 20-11-2006. 11. Further it is stated that the Award enquiry was conducted from 21-12-2006 to 24-12-2006 at M.P. Ele. School, Mallavaripalem village duly publishing notices under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act and service of notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act on the persons interested. The compensation amount awarded under Section 11(2) of the Act in Award No.77/2007 dated 18-3-2007 for the lands contended by the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition are as hereunder:- Land Details: Sy.No. Sub-Division No. Classification Extent 295 1 Dry 0.05 295 2 Dry 0.02 295 3 Dry 0.54 295 23 Dry 0.64 296 2 Dry 0.06 296 3 Dry 0.05 296 4 Dry 0.07 296 5 Dry 0.08 296 9 Dry 0.54 296 10 Dry 0.43 298 1 Dry 0.02 298 2 Dry 0.37 298 3 Dry 0.63 298 4 Dry 0.01 298 5 Dry 0.58 298 6 Dry 0.58 298 7 Dry 0.36 298 8 Dry 0.38 298 9 Dry 0.36 298 10 Dry 0.31 298 11 Dry 0.12 298 12 Dry 0.36 298 13 Dry 0.07 298 14 Dry 1.12 299 1 Dry 1.66 299 4 Dry 0.03 Total : 9.44 Tree Details Sy.No. Sub- Divn.No. Name of the tree No. of trees Tree value including all statutory benefits 295 1 Mango 2 9651.13 295 2 Mango 1 4825.57 295 3 Mango 19 91685.75 295 23 Mango 23 110988.01 296 2 Mango 2 9651.13 296 3 Mango 2 9651.13 296 4 Mango 3 14476.70 296 5 Mango 3 14476.70 296 9 Mango 20 96511.32 296 10 Mango 15 72383.49 298 1 Mango 1 4825.57 298 2 Mango 13 62732.36 298 3 Mango 23 110988.01 298 4 Mango 1 4825.57 298 5 Mango 23 110988.01 298 6 Mango 23 110988.01 298 7 Mango 13 62732.36 298 8 Mango 13 62732.36 298 9 Mango 13 62732.36 298 10 Mango 12 57906.79 Palmyrah 70 24054.80 298 11 Mango 4 19302.26 298 12 Mango 13 62732.36 298 13 Mango 3 14476.70 298 14 Mango 43 207499.33 Red Sandal 27 79189.79 Teak 25 30614.60 299 1 Mango 61 294359.52 Red Sandal 40 149203.63 299 4 Mango 2 8901.34 Total 523 Rs.19,77,080.66 It is further stated that the lands were held by the Awardee Sri Yanadi Ramachandraiah s/o. Papaiah, r/o. Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal and he is the notified enjoyer for the above extent of Ac.9.44 of dry land. He had attended the Award enquiry on 16-12- 2006 and 17-12-2006 and stated that he is the owner of the above land. He had produced pattadar pass book 177032 and assigned as pattadar 31 and enjoying the land for the past 25 years. Further, the public notices on Award enquiry had been issued before the Award enquiry in the daily Newspapers published from Tirupathi, Nellore and Chennai on 10-12-2006 in Eenadu, The Hindu and Dinathandhi and on 15-12-2006 in Vaartha, The Hindu, Dinathandhi. In addition, public notices were also issued after the award enquiry on 30-12-2006 in Tirupati, Nellore and Chennai editions of Eenadu, Vaartha, The Hindu and Dinathandhi calling for objections. Despite all the notices aforesaid, no counter claims had come with regard to the lands mentioned above and hence it was construed that Smt.J.Drakshayanamma w/o.Ramachandraiah is the only interested person in these lands. 12. The Panchayat Secretary, Mallavaripalem had also confirmed the ownership of the above lands in favour of Sri Yanadi Ramachandraiah s/o. Papaiah. No objections had been received during the award enquiry and hence the compensation for the above lands of Rs.23,60,000/- + Tree value of Rs.19,77,080-66, total compensation of Rs.43,37,080-66 was ordered to be paid to Sri Yanadi Ramachandraiah s/o. Papaiah. The awarded amount was received by the awardee on 17-4-2007 by way of Banker’s cheques. It is further stated that it is not true to state the writ petitioner was not asked to submit any objections in writing. As the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published nearly eight months after publication of the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as detailed supra, giving opportunity to all the ryots/interested persons to file any objections to conduct the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Since there were no objections received from any ryots or interested persons or from the writ petitioner the conducting of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not warranted in the instant case and hence the Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act were submitted to the Collector, Chittoor as contemplated under the Act. 13. In reply to the averments made in para-6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that proper application would be moved for changing the land use of the said land after completion of the Land Acquisition proceedings. Conversion of land use before acquiring the same does not arise as the land continues to be an agricultural land till it vests with the Government. When the Government desires to utilise the same for non-agricultural purpose, necessary action will be taken for such conversion, if necessary. The writ petitioner received the award amount of Rs.2,60,620-69 and Rs.43,37,080-66 vide Award Nos.76/2007 and 77/2007 respectively including the tree value of Rs.19,87,701-35 existing on the lands belonging to the writ petitioner. 14. In reply to the averments made in para-7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that the subject lands acquired are meant for establishment of Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone). The requisitioning authority viz., A.P. I.I.C. Limited had placed requisitions for establishment of said purpose and accordingly action had been initiated under the Act. It is not true and correct to state that the Government in exercise of its eminent domain power is depriving persons of their lands as reasonable compensation was paid to the ryots for their lands including the trees existing thereon before placing the Negotiation Committee as all the ryots had given consent for acquisition of lands including the writ petitioner. 15. The requisitioning Department/APIIC Limited had filed a written consent in Form-V as required under the provisions of A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules 1992 to the District Collector and Chairman, Negotiation Committee, to pass consent award through the Negotiation Committee under Section 11(2) of the Act and hence Form-I notices dated 9-2-2007 as required under the provisions of the A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules 1992 had been issued to all the land owners/persons interested in the lands. In response to the said notice in Form-I all the land owners including the writ petitioner who received the same on 28-2-2007. In response to the above notice in Form I all the land owners and interested persons including the writ petitioner also came forward for passing the consent award and gave consent in Form III (Agreement) and in Form-IV (Affidavit) to that effect. 16. It is also further stated that during the negotiations under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Chittoor the land owners had agreed for increase of 47.5% and 46.71% on the land value of wet lands and dry lands respectively and as per the rate fixed for the trees. The details of the package are as follows: Land value per acre for wet lands Market value per acre as per P.V. Rs.1,45,000-00 Solatium @ 30% of the M.V. Rs. 43,500-00 Additional Market Value @ 12% per annum Rs. 17,400-00 Total Rs.2,05,900-00 % of enhancement agreed in the Negotiation Committee 47.5% Rate per acre as per negotiations Rs.3,00,000-00 Land value per acre for dry lands Market value per acre as per P.V. Rs.1,20,000-00 Solatium @ 30% of the M.V. Rs. 36,000-00 Additional Market Value @ 12% per annum Rs. 14,400-00 Total Rs.1,70,400-00 % of enhancement agreed in the Negotiation Committee 46.71% Rate per acre as per negotiations Rs.2,50,000-00 It is further stated that for valuation of fruit bearing trees and non- bearing trees, the matter had been referred to the Assistant Director, Horticulture, Chittoor District and the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor East and all these officers had assessed the valuation of the trees and furnished the estimates. Further, the estimates sent by the Assistant Director, Horticulture and the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor had been verified. The value of non-fruit bearing trees had been taken into consideration as per the estimates furnished by the Forest Department and for fruit bearing trees, the rates fixed by the Horticulture Department as per G.O.Ms.No.357, Revenue (L.A.) Department dated 22-3-2006 are had been adopted for determination of compensation to the trees existing in the lands involved in the acquisition. In view of the same, the ryots including the writ petitioner had given consent for acquisition of lands in Mallavaripalem village of Satyavedu Mandal and hence consent awards had been passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. It is utter false to state that trading is being done by APIIC under the guise of Special Economic Zone for the benefit of private people. 17. In reply to para-8 of the affidavit it is stated that it is a fact that there are fruit bearing trees existing on the lands belonging to the writ petitioner and awards had been passed vide Award Nos.76/2007 and 77/2007 as hereunder:- Survey No. and S.D. No. Name of the tree No. of trees Tree value including all statutory benefits 290/4 Neem 1 674.76 Red Sandal 1 1254.03 Teak 1 1249.50 290/5 Mango 7 4258.49 Mango 1 608.36 290/6 Palmyrah 1 343.64 Tandra 1 674.40 290/7 Mango 2 1216.71 290/8 Teak 2 340.80 Total 17 Rs.10,620.69 Award No.77/2007 dated 18-3-2007: Sy.No. Sub-Division No. Name of the tree No. of trees Tree value including statutory benefits 295 1 Mango 2 9651.13 295 2 Mango 1 4825.57 295 3 Mango 19 91685.75 295 23 Mango 23 110988.01 296 2 Mango 2 9651.13 296 3 Mango 2 9651.13 296 4 Mango 3 14476.70 296 5 Mango 3 14476.70 296 9 Mango 20 96511.32 296 10 Mango 15 72383.49 298 1 Mango 1 4825.57 298 2 Mango 13 62732.36 298 3 Mango 23 110988.01 298 4 Mango 1 4825.57 298 5 Mango 23 110988.01 298 6 Mango 23 110988.01 298 7 Mango 13 62732.36 298 8 Mango 13 62732.36 298 9 Mango 13 62732.36 298 10 Mango 12 57906.79 Palmyrah 70 24054.80 298 11 Mango 4 19302.26 298 12 Mango 13 62732.36 298 13 Mango 3 14476.70 Teak 10 994.00 298 14 Mango 43 207499.33 Red Sandal 27 79189.79 Teak 25 30614.60 299 1 Mango 61 294359.52 Red Sandal 40 149203.63 299 4 Mango 2 8901.34 Total 523 Rs.19,77,080.66 It is further stated that the petitioner never objected at any point of time and by virtue of acquisition of lands reasonable compensation had been paid including trees under Package Deal since all the ryoths had given consent for acquisition of their lands including the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner had already received compensation of Rs.45,97,701.35 in respect of the two said Awards duly giving his consent and now seeks not to dispossess from the acquired lands which is nothing but ridiculous, irrelevant and misleading this Court under the guise of the rights under A.P. WALTA Act 2002 and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 18. In reply to the averments made in para-9 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is stated that it is true that the writ petitioner is the owner of the subject lands to an extent of Ac.10-44 situated in Mallavaripalme village of Satyavedu Mandal. However, with the consent of the writ petitioner the subject lands had been acquired by passing Consent Awards after following the formalities before passing the Award including necessary publications and calling for objections from all the ryoths and the interested persons. The contention of the writ petitioner that under the rule of A.P. Agricultural Land Act 2006 the agricultural land should not be converted for non- agricultural purposes is contradictory and ill-conceived notion with a mala fide intention to drag the issue. There is no contravention as the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated duly following the statutory provisions contemplated under the Act. Further it is stated that it is not correct to state that there is deprival of the writ petitioner as land compensation amount of Rs.45,97,701-35 was received by him for acquisition of his lands. Further it is false to