*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + WRIT PETITION Nos.17684 of 1997 and 19666 of 2004 % Dated 12.02.2008 W.P.No.17684 of 1997 Between: # Sri Goverdhana Chakradharachari. ….Petitioner And $ The District Collector and others. ….Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Abhinand K.Shavili ^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Land Acquisition W.P.No.19666 of 2004 Between: # Bolla Rama Lakshmi and others. ….Petitioners And $ The District Collector and others. ….Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna Murthy ^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Land Acquisition < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1. (2005) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 627 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17684 of 1997 and 19666 of 2004 Date: 12.02.2008 W.P.No.17684 of 1997 Between: Sri Goverdhana Chakradharachari. ….Petitioner And The District Collector and others. ….Respondents W.P.No.19666 of 2004 Between: Bolla Rama Lakshmi and others. ….Petitioners And The District Collector and others. ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17684 of 1997 and 19666 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in W.P.No.17684 of 1997 (for short ‘the petitioner’) is an Archaka of Sri Sitaramaswamy Temple, Duddukuru Village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District. An extent of Ac.4.20 cents of land in Survey No.175 of that Village was endowed to the Temple. The petitioner is said to be enjoying the usufruct of the land and rendering services to the Temple. Apprehending that the State Government would take over the land for providing house sites to weaker sections, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21935 of 1995. During the pendency of the writ petition, a notification, dated 07.12.1995, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued, proposing to acquire the land. Taking note of that development, this Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies vis-à- vis the notification. Accordingly, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5872 of 1996 questioning the said notification by raising several grounds. That writ petition was disposed of on 25.03.1996 directing the respondents herein to conduct enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act and it was left open to the petitioner to put forward all his contentions in such enquiry. The 2nd respondent herein, who was appointed as the Land Acquisition Officer, issued a notice dated 17.05.1996 proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 24.06.1996. The petitioner submitted his written representation dated 24.06.1996. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 10.06.1997. The petitioner challenges the said declaration in W.P.No.17684 of 1997 by raising several grounds. It is urged that the proceedings are vitiated by mala fides and that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was reduced to an empty formality. Some of the proposed beneficiaries of the acquisition filed W.P.No.19666 of 2004 complaining that though the proceedings under the Act have almost reached finality, no action has been taken to allot the plots. They seek directions to the respondents in this regard. Sri Abhinand K.Shavili, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though a specific direction was issued by this Court to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, it was reduced to just a formality and the objections raised by the petitioner were not taken into account by the Land Acquisition Officer, much less the State Government. He contends that the only right conferred upon a citizen under an expropriatory law was defeated. He further contends that the views of the Temple authorities or Department of Endowments were not at all ascertained before the proceedings were initiated. He had urged certain other contentions also. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that it is not obligatory under the Act to state the reasons in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and that the authorities concerned have examined the matter in detail, as directed by this Court, before the declaration was issued. He also submits that the possession of the land was already taken and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, particularly when the compensation would be paid under the Act. Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.19666 of 2004, apart from adopting the arguments of the learned Government Pleader, submits that the petitioner in W.P.No.17684 of 1997 has no locus standi to oppose the acquisition proceedings. He contends that the land is put to public use and the compensation that would be paid can be utilized for the maintenance of the Temple. The petitioner does not claim any ownership in the land in question. In his capacity as Archaka of the Temple, he is enjoying the usufruct of the land and he has taken the initiative to oppose the acquisition of the land for any other purpose. He approached this Court on two earlier occasions; first, apprehending the take over of the land and secondly, soon after the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. This Court disposed of the second writ petition on 25.03.1996 directing that the respondents shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Acting promptly, in pursuance of the said direction, the 2nd respondent issued a notice of hearing dated 17.05.1996. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation by raising several contentions. He referred to certain proceedings under the Andhra Tenancy Act vis-à-vis the land, non- availability of any other source to the Temple and existence of Government land for providing house sites, in the Village. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 10.06.1997 came to be issued. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the objections raised in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were not considered at all. It needs to be observed that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is issued in a prescribed form and it does not contemplate any discussion by the authority concerned, even where an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is held. Under the scheme of the Act, no reasoned order, referable to enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is contemplated. While an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, wherever held, cannot be reduced to an empty formality, the authority is not expected to pass a reasoned order in relation to the same. Obviously, faced with this situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though there is no requirement under the law to pass a reasoned order, the fact that the objections raised by an aggrieved party under Section 5-A of the Act were considered, must be evident from the record. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Darius Shapur Chennai[1], the Supreme Court held as under: “16. However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite, must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. As and when a person aggrieved questions the decision-making process, the court in order to satisfy itself as to whether one or more grounds for judicial review exist, may call for the records whereupon such records must be produced.” Therefore, the only way, in which the grievance of the petitioner can be addressed, is by perusing the record, to ascertain whether the objections raised in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were dealt with, at all. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in W.P.No.17684 of 1997, it is stated that the possession of the land was taken on 24.03.1996 i.e. one day prior to the date, on which W.P.No.5872 of 1996 was allowed and that the objections raised by the petitioner were dealt with in a detailed report, dated 28.04.1997. The relevant portion reads as under: “Accordingly Sri Govardhana Chakradharachari, the writ petitioner attended the 5A enquiry held on 24-6-96 and filed objection against the acquisition of the land covered by the writ petition. After completion of 5A enquiry a detailed report was submitted to the Collector, West Godavari, Eluru in this ROC.C-1617/94, dt.28-4-97 informing that the objections raised by the writ petitioners are not tenable and deserves no consideration.” If the proceedings dated 28.04.1997 dealt with the objections raised by the petitioner and thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued, this Court cannot go into the correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Government Pleader made available the copy of the proceedings, dated 28.04.1997. A perusal of the same discloses that the said proceedings are not at all connected with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and it is a letter addressed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Collector soliciting opinion on certain other aspects. It is important to note that a reference is made to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the representation submitted by the petitioner as well as the report submitted in relation thereto. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “A detailed report was submitted to the Collector, West Godavari, Eluru on 28.08.1996 directing the objections raised by the writ petitioners besides seeking clarification on the issue of filing of tenancy petition by Sri Kakarla Satyanarayana in a Civil Court of Kovvuru town. But no clarification has not been received so far.” Therefore, it becomes evident that the proceedings, dated 28.04.1997, by themselves, did not deal with the objections; and on the other hand, such objections were dealt with in proceedings dated 28.08.1996. The 2nd respondent herein, who issued the notice under Section 5-A of the Act, received the representation of the petitioner and noted as many as six objections raised therein. It was for him to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the objections raised by the petitioner are tenable or not. However, after extracting the six objections raised by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent observed as under, in the proceedings dated 28.08.1996: “In the above circumstances, I solicit instructions in taking further action in this S.W.L.A.case, since the so called tenant Sri Kakrla Satyanarayana said to have obtained injunction orders against the writ petitioner and the V.A.O.Duddukuru from the tenancy tribunal, Kovvur regarding the possession of the land in question in I.A.No.1573/96 in A.T.C.No.45/96. The High Court orders in W.P.No.5872 of 1996 on 25-3-96 regarding the possession of the land have become infractitious since the land was taken possession on 24-3-96. I resume that the orders if any passed by the Tenancy Tribunal regarding the possession of the land will not bind the L.A.O. as the L.A. was not included as respondent. I request early instructions in the matter for taking further action.” From this, it is evident that no opinion as to the objections raised by the petitioner was formed at all, much less findings were recorded. Except this, there is no other consideration of the objections. Therefore, there is a clear non-compliance of Section 5-A of the Act. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings under the Act were set aside by the High Court, on the ground that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not held effectively. The said Judgment of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court observing that the only right granted to a citizen under an expropriatory legislation cannot be defeated in such a manner. The principle squarely applies to the facts of this case also. Therefore, the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and consequently, the one under Section 4(1) of the Act got vitiated. The learned Government Pleader submits that the possession of the land was taken and thereby, the land stands vested in the Government. Had it been a case, where the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, taking possession of the land would certainly have resulted in vesting of the land in the Government under Section 17(1) of the Act. Where however, enquiry under Section is held, it would be competent for the Government to take possession only after the award is passed under Section 11 of the Act; and the vesting would take place under Section 16 of the Act. Inasmuch as the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was directed to be held in the instant case, possession taken earlier thereto is of no legal consequence. Therefore, W.P.No.17684 of 1997 has to be allowed. Consequently, W.P.No.19666 of 2004 deserves to be dismissed. As to the course of action to be taken subsequently, this Court has to take note of the pendency of W.P.No.10547 of 2006, where the acquisition of the land belonging to Temples is at issue. An interim order was passed on 30.05.2006 directing stay of acquisition of land belonging to Temples all over the State. Till the said writ petition is disposed of, further action cannot be taken. So far as the administration of the land is concerned, it is directed that the Temple shall have the authority to enjoy the usufruct of the land by granting leasehold rights year after year, from the next crop season, by conducting public auction. The proceeds thereof shall be utilized for the services and if possible, the salaries of the employees. Accordingly, W.P.No.17684 of 1997 is allowed with the above directions and W.P.No.19666 of 2004 is dismissed. __________ 12.02.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17684 of 1997 and 19666 of 2004 Date: 12.02.2008 [1] (2005) 7 SUPREME COURT CASES 627