THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16617 of 2007 Dated:18th August, 2010 Between: 1. M.G.Murali & Anr. ….Petitioners and 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor & Anr. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16617 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by M.G.Murali and M.G.Ramachandran questioning the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, ‘the Act’) as published in A.P.Gazette Part-I Extraordinary Issue No.CTR.5/2004, dated 03.02.2004 and Section 6 Declaration published in A.P.Gazette No.12/2005, dated 23.02.2005 and Award passed in Roc.No.A/513/03, dated 23.02.2007 in so far as it relates to the petitioners’ properties bearing Door Nos.8/70, 71, 74 and 75 and Vinayaka Swamy Temple; Door No.8/33 and Door No.8/104, situated at Samajam Street, Tiruchanur Village, Chittoor District.. 2. The petitioners are the owners and possessors of the house bearing Door Nos.8/70, 71, 74, 75 and Vinayakaswamy Temple situated in Tiruchanur village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been issued on 03.02.2004 and published in A.P.Gazette No.5/2004, proposing the acquisition of lands of the petitioners and others for widening of the Samajam Street of Sri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple at Tiruchanur. It has also been published in two daily newspapers viz., ‘Andhra Prabha’ a Telugu daily and in ‘Indian Express’, an English daily on 17.02.2004. The substance of Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality on 27.02.2004. Land owners filed objections opposing the acquisition of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and received the objections. He sent the report to the Government recommending for rejection of the objections filed by the interested persons. The Government considered the objections as well as the report of the Land Acquisition Officer and proceeded to reject the objections and consequently approved the draft declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act. Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be published in A.P.Gazette No.8/2005, dated 23.02.2005, and in two daily newspapers viz., ‘The Hindu’ an English daily and ‘EENADU’ a Telugu daily, on 25.02.2005. The substance of declaration has also been published in the locality on 25.02.2005. Award enquiry has been conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The 1st petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer during the award enquiry. He stated during the enquiry that notified property bearing Door Nos.8/70, 71, 74, 75 and Vinayakaswamy Temple situated in Tiruchanur village, are purchased from M.Sreenivasa Raghavacharyulu S/o.M.Krishnamacharyulu under a registered sale deed dated 15.02.1934. He also stated during the enquiry that his mother Smt.M.G.Padma and his brothers M.G.Sreenivasan, M.G.Vijaya Kumar have no objection for payment of compensation to him. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 23.02.2007 and sent notices under Section 12(2) of the Act to the petitioners and other land owners. The petitioners received the notices on 02.06.2007. They did not receive the compensation and instead they choose to file this Writ Petition on 02.08.2007 with the prayer stated supra. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the land and buildings sought to be acquired are not for public purpose and that Section 6 declaration has been published after lapse of two years, as such the entire proceedings are vitiated on the ground of delay. Paras.6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition need to be noted and they are thus: “6.It is further submitted that proposed acquisition proceedings are also bad for the reason that the TTD has no vested interest or title in Tiruchanur Village which is governed by Gram Panchayat under State Government as such Crores of rupees of TTD need not be invested for the purpose of said acquisition. That apart, now, Vinanayaka Swamy Temple situated in Door No.8-75 is also now sought to be acquired contrary to the guidelines. Hence, the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside on this ground also. 7. I humbly submit that in 2nd week of June, 2007, the 2nd respondent officials are making hectic efforts to evict us from the houses and to demolish the acquired portion of the house building by marking the same without depositing 80% of the compensation. Again on 23.06.2007 the officials of the 2nd responent came to dispossesses us and demolish the house. We resisted the same. They went away stating that they will come again and straight away demolish the houses. The action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. As there is eminent threat of our dispossession by the respondents, we are compelled to file this Writ Petition seeking suitable orders in this regard.” 4. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 03.08.2007. An interim stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the properties in their occupation came to be issued on the even date vide WPMP No.21165 of 2007. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. They also moved WVMP No.2628 of 2007 to vacate the interim order dated 03.08.2007. 5. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in brief is: The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati, placed a requisition to the Special Deputy Collector, L.A.,TTD, Tirupati, on 10.03.2003 for acquiring the land in an extent of 24,638.75 sq. ft. along with structures in Sy.No.418/2 in Tiruchanur Village for the purpose of widening of Samajam Street. The Special Deputy Collector, L.A., TTD, Tirupati, initiated land acquisition proceedings and submitted notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the Government through the District Collector vide letter dated 04.111.2003. The Government has approved the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. After approval, draft notification has been published in the A.P. Gazette, two daily newspapers and in the locality as required under the Act. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act came to be conducted. The writ petitioners neither filed objections nor attended the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The objections filed by other land owners have been enquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and submitted a report to the Government through the District Collector, Chittoor, for taking a decision on the 5-A enquiry. Accordingly, the Government, after considering the objections raised by the other property owners and after perusing the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer, came to the conclusion that the objections are not tenable and hence, approved the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 23.02.2005. The draft declaration came to be published in the A.P.Gazette, in two daily newspapers viz., ‘EENADU’ Telugu daily, ‘The Hindu’ English daily, and substance in the locality on 25.02.2005. Thereafter, notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act were issued and served on the petitioners requiring them to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer for award enquiry on 04.09.2006 to 08.09.2006. It is only the 2nd petitioner attended award enquiry on 27.11.2006 and claimed compensation to the property covered under the acquisition in Samajam Street of Tiruchanur @ Rs.60,000/- per Ankanam for the site and @ Rs.25,000/- per Ankanam for the structure. Award came to be passed on 23.02.2007 and notice under Section 12(2) of the Act has been issued to the petitioners directing them to receive the compensation. The Writ petitioners instead of receiving the compensation filed this Writ Petition. In view of the interim orders passed in WPMP No.21165 of 2007, on 03.08.2007, the respondents could not take possession of the land. From out of the 69 awardees in Award No.5/2006-2007, dated 23.02.2007, except the writ petitioners and three other non locals, all the other awardees have received the compensation. The possession of the property of the awardees, who received compensation, was taken on 05.09.2007 and handed over the same to the TTD. The contention of the petitioners that the land and buildings situated in Samajam Street alone are sought to be acquired at present is not correct. The site and the structures in Sannidhi Street and the site and structures in three streets around the Holy Tank were acquired. The award has been passed within two years from the date of draft declaration in the locality which has been effected on 25.02.2005. Since the beneficiary has not taken advance possession of the land, question of payment of 80% compensation to the petitioners does not arise. 6. The Writ Petitioners filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that Vinayaka Swamy Temple is being used as a public religious temple and therefore, it cannot be destroyed and any move to demolish the temple amounts to wounding religious feeling besides putting an end to the daily worship performed to Lord Vinayaka and other deities in the temple. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not considered the objections filed by the petitioners during the 5-A enquiry and therefore, declaration under Section 6 of the Act is to be treated as null and void. A further submission has been made that Section 6 Declaration came to be issued after two years of the publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Act and therefore, Section 6 declaration is illegal and void. He would also contend that Vinayakaswamy temple is existing in the land sought to be acquired and in which case acquisition of land is impermissible under the provisions of the Act. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners have not filed any objections pursuant to the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and therefore, they cannot be permitted to challenge the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. A further submission has been made that existence of the temple has been indicated in Section 4(1) Notification itself. Even the 1st petitioner, who appeared on his behalf and also on behalf of the 2nd petitioner, did not raise any objection for acquisition of the land and he only sought for payment of compensation to him. Learned Asst. Government Pleader would also submit that the substance in the locality came to be published on 25.02.2005 and Award came to be passed on 23.02.2007 i.e. within the period of two years, in which case, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that Section 6 declaration is beyond the period of limitation. 10. I have gone through the Award dated 23.02.2007. It is stated in the Award that land owners filed objections during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and their objections have been forwarded to the Government and thereupon, the Government considered the report of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the objections and rejected the objections and approved Section 6 Declaration which came to be published in the A.P. Gazette on 23.02.2005. It is also stated in the Award that 1st petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed payment of compensation. The relevant portion of the Award reads as hereunder: “32. Sri M.G.Murali S/o.M.G.Chary, notified owner of Door No.8/70, 71, 74, 75 & Vinayakaswamy Temple:- Sri M.G.Murali S/o.M.G.Chary is the notified owner of the structure bearing door No.8/70, 71, 74, 75 and Vinayaka Swamy Temple. Sri M.G.Ramachandran S/o.M.G.Chary, has attended for Award enquiry on 18.10.2006 as an authorized person of the property owner Smt. M.Padma. During the enquiry, he/she has stated that the notified property bearing door No.8/70, 71, 74, 75 and Vinayaka Swamy Temple was purchased from M.Sreenivasa Raghavacharyulu S/o.M.Krishnamacharyulu for an extent of 984 sq.ft. through registered sale deed No.319, dated 15.02.1934. During the award enquiry he has stated that his mother Smt.M.G.Padma and his brothers M.G.Sreenivasan, M.G.Vijayakumar have no objection to pass the award in favour of Sri M.G.Murali for the properties under acquisition in D.No.8/70, 71, 74 and 75. They also stated that the property in D.No.8/70 & 71 is let out for rent and property in D.No.8/74 is a shed used as Vahana Mandapam for Lord Vinayaka Swamy, and the property in D.No.8/75 is a residence for the Archaka of the Vinayaka Swamy Temple. Adjacent to it (in the western side) is the Potu of Lord Vinayaka Swamy and adjacent to it there is Vinayaka Swamy Temple. In support of his claim, he has produced Xerox copies of registered sale deed No.319 dated 15.02.1934. He has claimed ownership of the notified property and requested for payment of compensation to his brother Sri M.G.Murali. No others have claimed ownership of the property except Sri M.G.Murali. There are no rival claims or title disputes. Hence the ownership of Sri M.G.Murali over the notified property in door No.8/70, 71, 74, 75 and Vinayaka Swamy Temple of Tiruchanur is established. The compensation awarded to Sri M.G.Murali for the properties now under acquisition is as follows: Sl.No. Door No. Extent Total Compensation Income Tax Deduction Net Compensation 1 8-70 & 71 837 sq.ft 170214.00 19098.00 151116.00 2 8-74 132 sq. ft. 33070.00 0 33070.00 3 8-75 and Sri Vinayaka Swamy Temple 771 sq. ft. 343081.00 38494.00 304587.00 Total 546365.00 57592.00 488773.00 In view of the discussions made in the preceding paras, an amount of Rs.5,46,365/- being the compensation for the site and structure bearing door no.8/70, 71, 74, 75 and Vinayaka Swamy Temple of Tiruchanur, is awarded to Sri M.G.Murali S/o.M.G.Chary. Out of the total compensation, an amount of Rs.57592/- is deducted towards income tax @ 10% on total compensation and Surcharge at 10% and Education Cell at 2%, which exceeds at Rs.1,00,000/- in terms of Govt. Memo. No.27577/LA(A2)/05, dt.16-6-2005. Hence the net compensation amount awarded to him is Rs.4,88,773/- (Rupees Four Lakh eighty eight thousand seven hundred and seventy three only) as detailed in the Annexure enclosed to the award.” 11. It is explicit from the Award dated 23.02.2007 that the 1st petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and sought for compensation and he never raised any objections for acquisition of the premises owned by him and the 2nd petitioner. The substance of Sec.6 Declaration in the locality came to be published in the locality on 25.02.2005 and the Award came to be passed on 23.02.2007. Therefore, the Award is passed within two years of the date of declaration. In view of the above discussion, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the Award dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. If the petitioners are dis-satisfied with the quantum of compensation, they are at liberty to make an application within two weeks from today seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation. 12. Before parting with the case, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners made a representation to the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati, to build Vinayakaswamy temple instead of paying compensation for the land acquired from their possession. 13. This order does not preclude the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati, to consider the representation of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:18th August, 2010. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16617 of 2007 Dated:18th August, 2010