THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23633 of 2006 August 13, 2010 Between: P.Shirisha, W/o.Raghurama Rao And another … Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Khairatabad, Ranga Reddy District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23633 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) initiated by the State for acquiring their lands admeasuring Acs.1.18½ guntas in S.No.253, and Acs.0.11 guntas in S.No.220 situated at Turkapally Village of Shamirpet Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. They filed instant writ petition seeking invalidation of notifications issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act. The fact of the matter, which is relevant for appreciating the issues that are thrown up by the petitioners in their pleadings and by the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in their counter affidavits, may be briefly noticed. Though notices are served, third respondent who are represented by the counsel did not file any counter affidavit. The second respondent – Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) is fully owned undertaking of Government of Andhra Pradesh. They sent a requisition on 27.2.2004 for acquisition of Acs.78.66 guntas in Turkapally Village for establishment of Bio-Park. Necessary proposals were called for and first respondent sent draft notification proposing to acquire an extent Acs.61.18 guntas. On 05.8.2004, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, published notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is the allegation of petitioners that the land is indeed sought to be acquired for fourth respondent for establishing drugs and pharmaceuticals unit, that fourth respondent initially tried to buy the land by private negotiations, that they purchased an extent of Acs.36.20 guntas from the farmers and that when they were unsuccessful for acquiring required extent, they approached the Government. According to petitioners, at the behest of fourth respondent and as requested by the APIIC, the Government dropped proposals for acquiring more than 50% of proposed land. The Government also issued G.O.Rt.No.684, dated 24.10.2004, exempting Acs.35.00 from acquisition and thereafter a declaration was made on 23.8.2005 for acquiring Acs.24.35 guntas. The same was published in the Gazette on 23.8.2005. Thereafter as requested by APIIC, an addendum to the declaration was issued on 19.1.2006. Subsequent thereto, as requested by APIIC, an extent of Acs.13.23 guntas was deleted from acquisition and first respondent passed award on 16.10.2006 for an extent of Acs.14.08½ guntas. The State and APIIC also aver that the land was acquired on the requisition of the latter and that the proposals did not emanate at the instance of third respondent. They also rely on Sooraram Pratap Reddy v District Collector, Ranga Reddy District[1] to counter petitioners’ argument of non-compliance with Part VII of the Act. The Counsel for petitioners contends that the names of petitioners are not mentioned in the notifications and that the declaration is issued beyond the period of one year. He would urge that notice was not issued to petitioners under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act and, therefore, the award is vitiated. Lastly he contends that the acquisition is mala fide and the same was done to benefit third respondent without following the provisions in Part VII of the Act. These contentions are refuted by the Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) and the Standing Counsel for APIIC. The Counsel for the parties relied on DDA v Samey Singh[2], Mohan v State of Maharashtra[3], Ashok Kumar v State of Haryana[4], Devinder Singh v State of Punjab[5], Meera Sahni v LT.Governor of Delhi[6] and Sooraram Pratap Reddy. The land admeasuring Acs.3.13½ guntas in S.No.253 was owned by joint family of B.Rajamani, W/o.Prabhaker Goud. Second petitioner owned an extent of Acs.0.11 guntas in S.No.220 on 23.3.2000. He purchased the land admeasuring Acs.3.13½ guntas from Rajamani under registered sale deed dated 08.11.2002. He allegedly got mutation in his favour in the revenue records besides obtaining Pattadar Pass Book/Title Deed (PPB/TD). He sold an extent of Acs.1.00 to first petitioner – a Non Resident Indian; under registered sale deed dated 23.9.2004. He also sold an extent of Acs.2.00 in S.No.253 to M/s.Aruna Enterprises on 04.2.2003. It is the case of respondents that notifications were issued taking into consideration the revenue entries in the record of rights and petitioners’ names were duly mentioned as co-owners in respect of land in S.No.220. As there was no mutation, the name of petitioners’ vendor was mentioned in S.No.253. The land was sold to first petitioner after notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and, therefore, the name of first petitioner was not found. This aspect of the matter is uncontraverted as no reply affidavit is filed. It is the case of respondents that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made for Acs.24.35 guntas although the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued for larger extent. An addendum was also issued including Ac.1.18½ guntas in S.No.253. It is also not disputed that addendum was published in English and Telugu Newspapers on 25.8.2004 and 27.8.2004 respectively whereas publication was made on 24.8.2004 in the locality. In that view of the matter, publication of declaration on 22.8.2005 (published in the Gazette on 23.8.2005) is not beyond the period as per first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act. The respondents also contend that the notices under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act during the award enquiry were issued to those persons as per Village records and that the names of the petitioners were not reflected. The Government Pleader challenges the locus of first petitioner to assail the notification. According to him, having purchased the land after issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, she cannot challenge the proceedings under the Act. He is supported by the decision of Supreme Court. I n Meera Sahni, the Supreme Court held that a person who purchased the land subsequent to the issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that such person would only be entitled to get the compensation. After referring to U.P. Jal Nigam v Kalra Properties (P) Ltd[7], Sneh Prabha v State of U.P.[8], Ajay Krishan Shinghal v Union of India[9] and Star Wire (India) Ltd v State of Haryana[10], the Supreme Court observed as follows. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognized the aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. … … it is by now well settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation. (emphasis supplied) It must, therefore, be held that first petitioner has no locus to challenge the land acquisition proceedings as she purchased the land admeasuring Acs.1.00 on 23.9.2004, after issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Further, indisputably the second petitioner who claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.3.13½ guntas in S.No.253 and Acs.0.11 guntas in S.No.220 already sold an extent of Acs.2.00 to M/s.Aruna Enterprises. It is not clear that the land admeasuring Acs.1.18½ guntas in S.No.253 which is now sought to be acquired by reason of addendum to the declaration issued on 23.1.2006 also forms part of the land sold by second petitioner to M/s.Aruna Enterprises. Be that as it is, after purchasing the land in S.No.253, second petitioner statedly got his name mutated and obtained PPB/TD. He placed reliance on the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer being No.B/630/2004, dated 09.6.2004. It was issued at or about the time of issuing notification under Section 4(1). Therefore, in all probability, the respondents are right in contending that the notices under Section 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act were issued only to those persons whose names were found in the record of rights. It is not clear whether amendment was carried out in record of rights before issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 05.8.2004. It is reasonable to draw an inference that by the time APIIC sent requisition on 27.2.2004 for acquisition of Acs.76.06 guntas for establishment of Biotechnology Park, the second petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the revenue records. Hence, non-issue of notices under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act is not fatal to the acquisition. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 06.8.2004. As required under law, the same was also published in English daily on 25.8.2004 and Telugu daily 27.8.2004. The publication was made on 24.8.2004. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 22.8.2005 (published in the Gazette on 23.8.2005) and addendum thereof was issued on 23.1.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 16.10.2006 whereas the period of two years would lapse on 23.8.2007. Therefore the petitioners’ contention that the award was not passed within stipulated time stands belied. As noticed supra, petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit denying the counter averments nor they have denied that the award was made on 16.10.2006. The submission of the Counsel that the acquisition is mala fide and the proceedings of Part VII of the Act were not followed is devoid of any merit. No specific mala fides are attributed against any official of respondents 1, 2 and 4 nor the officials, who allegedly acted mala fide, were impleaded as party respondents. It is well settled that the burden lies on the person who alleges mala fides to prove at least on probabilities that the decision maker has acted with bad faith. The petitioners have not made any effort in that direction. The plea with regard to non-compliance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act also is without any merit. It is the APIIC which requisitioned the land for establishment of Biotechnology Park. Even if ultimately the land was sought to be allotted to third party, the nature of acquisition would not change. The APIIC is a facilitator. If the land is acquired at their behest, the same does not require compliance with procedure under Part VII of the Act. I n Sooraram Pratap Reddy, reviewing almost entire case law, the acquisition of land for APIIC for development of “financial district and allied projects” was upheld. The relevant observations are as follows. APIIC is an instrumentality of State and works as `Nodal Agency' developing the project which would facilitate socio-economic progress of the State by generating revenues, weeding out unemployment and bringing new avenues and opportunities for public at large. Development of infrastructure is legal and legitimate `public purpose' for exercising power of eminent domain. Simply because a Company has been chosen for fulfillment of such public purpose does not mean that the larger public interest has been sacrificed, ignored or disregarded. It will also not make exercise of power bad, mala fide or for collateral purpose vitiating the proceedings. … … The entire amount of compensation is to be paid by State agency (APIIC) which also works as nodal agency for execution of the project. It is primarily for the State to decide whether there exists public purpose or not. Undoubtedly, the decision of the State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. In appropriate cases, where such power is exercised mala fide or for collateral purposes or the purported action is de hors the Act, irrational or otherwise unreasonable or the so-called purpose is `no public purpose' at all and fraud on statute is apparent, a writ-court can undoubtedly interfere. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) August , 2010 YS [1] (2008) 9 SCC 552 [2] (2005) 13 SCC 682 [3] (2007) 9 SCC 431 : AIR 2007 SC 2625 [4] (2007) 3 SCC 470 : AIR 2007 SC 1411 [5] (2008) 1 SCC 728 : AIR 2008 SC 261 [6] (2008) 9 SCC 177 [7] (1996) 3 SCC 124 : AIR 1996 SC 1170 [8] (1996) 7 SCC 426 : AIR 1996 SC 540 [9] (1996) 10 SCC 721 : AIR 1996 SC 2677 [10] (1996) 11 SCC 698