THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16744 of 2006 Dated:09.07.2010 Between: Bandi Gouripathi Rao, And others. ...Petitioners And The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16744 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners who are seven in number are from Tekkali Town in Srikakulam District. They filed the instant writ petition assailing the notification dated 09.03.2004 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), proposing to acquire the land to an extent of 0.95.5 hectares in various survey numbers. The petitioners and six others who are not before this Court are concerned with an extent of 0.07.5 hectares in survey No.472-3B. The first petitioner is an Advocate. He is the owner of four pucca shops admeasuring 6’ X 6’ each and a bunk. His shops are let out to tenants. The second petitioner is owner of three shops and third petitioner is owner of two shops. Similarly, petitioner Nos.4, 5 and 6 also own small shops in the said land. These shops are either let out to tenants or occupied by the owners for the purpose of business. The first respondent issued impugned notification for acquiring the land for public purpose for conversion of narrow gauge to broad gauge from Naupada to Gunupur Railway line. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with in exercise of powers under Section 17(4) of the Act. The petitioners allege that the proposal for conversion of narrow gauge to broad gauge was dropped, and therefore, the petitioners did not pursue the matter. They received notice dated 19.06.2006 under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act from the second respondent to appear for award enquiry. The petitioners allege that though the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, possession was not taken and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not published by the first respondent. Therefore, they contend that the issue of notices under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act is illegal. It is also further case of the petitioners that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with in a routine manner without application of mind and there is no urgency to dispense with the enquiry contemplated under the Act. The writ petition is filed against the District Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer). This Court passed interim orders directing the respondents not to proceed further pursuant to the notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act. In November 2006 respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application, being W.V.M.P.No.2290 of 2006, for vacating the interim order. While the same was pending, Union of India represented by its Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) East Coast Railway, filed application, being W.P.M.P.No.10886 of 2008, seeking impleadment as respondent No.3. They also filed W.V.M.P(SR).No.42749 of 2008, for vacating the interim order. All these applications were listed before this Court on 02.07.2010. As the submission for the purpose of interlocutory applications and the main writ petition are the same, the matter itself is heard finally with the consent of the Counsel and is being disposed of by this order. The second respondent in the counter affidavit stated as follows. Deputy Chief Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Visakhapatnam, has requisitioned 27 hectares in the Andhra Pradesh villages between Naupada and Parlakhumindi for railway gauge conversion of Naupada – Gunupur Railway line. The total extent of 99717 square metres of both Government and private lands involved in the alignment were finalized and advance possession was handed over to railway authorities on 18.07.2004. The construction work of forming earth roads is taken up. The project involves acquisition of 0.95.5 hectares private land in Raghunathapuram village. These lands were taken possession after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Necessary award enquiry was completed for payment of compensation except the compensation for structures. The petitioners filed the writ petition with a view to get higher compensation. It is further stated that the petitioners who are from Tekkali owned buildings and other structures in an extent of Ac.0.05½ cents which is covered in the alignment of railway line. The compensation for the structures has been determined in accordance with the variation given by the Executive Engineer (Roads and Buildings), Tekkali. In the counter affidavit the details of notification are given as below. Particulars of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act Publication in: The Gazette … Srikakulam No.53, dated 27.04.2004 The locality … dated 08.05.2004 The Andhra Prabha Telugu Daily news paper … dated 05.05.2004 The Telugu Daily News paper, Vizag Reporter … dated 06.05.2004 Particulars of declaration under Section 6 of the Act In the Gazette … Srikakulam No.57, dated 19.05.2004 In the locality … dated 30.05.2004 In Suryaprabha Telugu Daily News paper … dated 26.05.2004 In the Ratnagarba Daily News paper … dated 29.05.2004 It is the further case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the railway authorities already commenced the work so as to complete as per the schedule. The award enquiry was completed on 18.07.2006 and draft award has been sent for approval to the District Collector. The compensation will be paid to the owners of the land after receiving the approval. The third respondent filed separate counter affidavit on the lines similar to the averments made in the counter affidavit of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also stated that in view of the urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and advance possession was taken on 18.07.2004. On 30.03.2006 an agreement was entered into with the contractor with a time stipulation of six months for completion. In view of the pendency of the writ petition the award could not be finalized. Counsel for the petitioners, Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Standing Counsel for Railways made their submissions. The attention of this Court is also invited to Indira v Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tirupathi[1], Union of India v Mukesh Hans[2] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v Darius Shapur Chenai[3]. Petitioners filed the writ petition alleging that without issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act, notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act were issued requiring the petitioners’ participation in the award enquiry. This ground no more survives. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 have given the details of the declaration published in the Gazette and local news papers, which belies the contention of the petitioners. No reply affidavit is filed. As held by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) the allegations which remain nontraversed are deemed to have been admitted, and therefore, the basis for filing the writ petition goes. The land acquisition is also challenged on the ground that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with in a routine manner. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the proposal for conversion of the narrow gauge to broad gauge in the area was mooted long back, and therefore, there is no urgency to dispense with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court cannot accept the submission for two reasons as below. Any development project is taken up after considering various aspects like necessity, feasibility, economic viability and availability of economic resources. As the work of laying railway line or work of conversion of narrow gauge to broad gauge involves detailed planning and considerable funds, it is but natural that the project is conceived well in advance, and by the time resources are mobilized there would be some time lapse. The time lapse does not necessarily lead to an inference that there cannot be any urgency for conversion of narrow gauge to broad gauge. This Court can take judicial notice of the matter that the local people always desire to have a broad gauge railway so that there would be more economic development. In our country where we have adopted the modal of planned development having regard to resources, the availability of funds, the long demand of the people, is itself sufficient reason to infer urgency in the matter of acquisition of land for railways. Secondly, this Court has perused the files produced by the Government Pleader. The Panchayat Secretary handed over possession of the land on 16.07.2004 to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tekkali. In turn the Mandal Surveyor handed over possession to Section Engineer, East Coast Railway on 18.07.2004. The effective date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is 06.05.2004 and the effective date of publication of declaration is 19.05.2004 as per the particulars furnished by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, possession was taken within two months thereafter. The file from the Office of respondent No.2 would also suggest that all the petitioners appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and gave statements expressing no objection for acquisition of the land. They also filed claim statements claiming certain amounts. These statements would certainly belie the contention that the acquisition is vitiated by procedural irregularities. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer has already passed consent award No.13A/2007-08, dated 20.02.2008, and therefore, the writ petition no more survives. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the amount of compensation they can always file application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the civil Court. The writ petition deserves no consideration. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.07.2010 vs [1] 2003 (4) ALD 586 [2] 2004 (8) SCC 14 [3] 2005 AIR SCW 4796