IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1005 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/09/2007 in WP NO : 17753 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, 1-8-323, Paigah Palace, Police Line, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad 2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep by the Secretary, 1-8-323, Paigah Palace, Police Lines, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, ranga Reddy District Khairatabad, Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 M. Sudershan Reddy S/o late Kista Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 2 M. Vittal Reddy S/o Late Kista Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3 M. Ram Reddy S/o Late Ranga Reddy rep by his GPA Sri.M. Sudershan Reddy S/o Late Kista Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 4 Madan Mohan Reddy S/o Late Narsa Reddy GPA Sri. M. Sudershan Reddy S/o Late Kista Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 5 M. Chandrakala W/o M. Sudarshan Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 6 M. narasimha Reddy S/o Late Papi Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 7 M. Hanumantha Reddy s/o Late Vasudeva Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 8 T. Vijay S/o Ramulu GPA Sri. M. Sudershan Reddy S/o late Kista Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 9 M. Shailender Reddy S/o Late Nagender Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 10 M. Bal Reddy S/o late Shankar Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 11 M. Anoop Reddy S/o Late Shankar Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 12 M. hanumantha Reddy S/o Late Shankar Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 13 M. Sanjeeva Reddy S/o Late Shankar Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 14 M. Venkat Reddy S/o Late Gopal Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 15 M. Yamunamma W/o Late Janga Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 16 M. Muthyam Reddy S/o Late yella Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 17 M. Dushyanth Reddy S/o late M. Anantha Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 18 M. Jaswanth Reddy S/o Late M. Anantha Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 19 M. Ranga Reddy S/o Late Vasudeva Reddy R/o Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet mandal, Ranga Reddy District 20 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 21 The District Collector, Ranga ReddyDistrict,Khairatabad Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and 6 : Sri R.Raghunandan Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 7 to 19 : Sri S.R. Ashok, Senior Counsel, representing Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1005 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants as well as Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 7 to 19 and Sri R.Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and 6. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 24-09-2007, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17753 of 2006 allowing the writ petition. 3. Appellants are respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondents are petitioners in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), published in A.P. Gazette Extraordinary, RR No.58, dated 01-08-2003 and the draft declaration notified under Section 6 of the Act, notified in the A.P. Gazette Extraordinary, RR No.66, dated 31-08-2004 as null and void. 6. The facts, in brief, are as under: The petitioners are agriculturists and residents of Anthaipally village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Government land to an extent of about Acs.2000 in Survey Nos.12, 41, 105, 106 etc., situated at Jawaharnagar village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was handed over to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (for brevity “the HUDA”) for development of Township and other allied activities. The said land of the Government appears to be situated behind the land under the present acquisition. The purpose of present acquisition appears to be for giving effective frontage to the entire land of Jawaharnagar Township and also to improve the accessibility and connectivity vis-à-vis Shameerpet Ghatkesar R & B Road. Accordingly, the second respondent-the HUDA has sent a requisition in the year 2003 to acquire an extent of Acs.632-07 guntas situated at Anthaipally village, Shameerpet Mandal. Basing on the said requisition, proceedings were initiated by the fourth respondent-District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, being the delegated authority of the Government for acquisition of the land under the Act, and a Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 01-08-2003 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Extraordinary, R.R.No.58. During the pendency of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, it appears that several individual farmers represented that they are the marginal farmers and any acquisition of the lands would deprive them of their livelihood and requested to delete their areas from the proposed acquisition. Basing on the said request and taking into consideration the whole stock of the situation, including the financial requirement of the HUDA’s ongoing and the proposed projects, projects cost and development of Acs.2500 land, the second respondent-HUDA had agreed to delete Acs.272-18 guntas of land belonging to small farmers and suggested that the connectivity can be created towards the road by way of laying a 200 feet road from Jawaharnagar to Keesara Road and, therefore, sought permission to delete Acs.272-18 guntas of land belonging to small farmers from acquisition of the land notified under Section 4 (1) of the Act, through letter bearing D.O.Lr.No.LA/46/2002, dated 05-06- 2004, addressed to the fourth respondent-District Collector, Ranga Reddy, marking a copy to the Government. Pursuant to the said letter, dated 05-06-2004, the Land Acquisition Officer, by a separate letter, bearing No.LA/46/2002, dated –07-2004, addressed to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, submitted proposals under Section 48 (1) of the Act for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the fourth respondent-District Collector also addressed a letter, bearing No.G2/5380/2003, dated 11-08-2004, to the Secretary to Government, TR & B (Roads-III) Department, seeking approval of the withdrawal proceedings under Section 48 of the Act. However, in spite of the same, the District Collector had issued declaration vide No.G2/5380/03, dated 31-08-2004, under Section 6 of the Act and the same was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Extraordinary RR No.66, dated 31-08-2004. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners, challenging the validity of the Notification issued under Section 4 (1) as well as the Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. 7. The learned single Judge, after an elaborate consideration of the merits of the case, found that there was no satisfaction arrived at by the District Collector for issuing the Declaration as required under Section 6 of the Act and, on the other hand, the District Collector was in knowledge that the land in an extent of Acs.272-18 guntas was not required by the requisitioning Department and there was no public purpose existing, as the alternative road was suggested, and he was of the opinion that the same would be deleted from the proposed acquisition and when the requisitioning Department itself is no longer interested, proceeding with the acquisition proceedings is without any basis. 8. While arriving at the above said conclusion, the learned single Judge placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the apex Court in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. v. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAIin[1], wherein the apex Court, while considering the Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis the State’s power of ‘eminent domain’, has held that the State in exercise of its power may interfere with the right of property of a person by resorting to acquisition, but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation also must be paid. 9. The learned single Judge, basing on the above observations of the apex Court, found that in the instant case, neither the need nor the public purpose did exist at all, as required under Section 6 of the Act for issuance of Declaration, and accordingly, held that the Declaration published on 31-08-2004 is invalid. Eventually, the learned single Judge set aside the notification, dated 01-08-2003, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act and also the Declaration, dated 31-08-2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act, to the extent of the lands belonging to the petitioners. Hence, the present writ appeal by respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. In this connection, it is to be noted that before the learned single Judge, the respondents had taken the plea that there was a delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court, but the same was negatived by the learned Judge. However, the said contention was not seriously adverted to before this Court, in this appeal. 11. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents mainly contended that the decision of the requisitioning authority is not conclusive and need not be adhered to by the Government, that the District Collector has no independent power or authority to denotify the lands already acquired and he has to necessarily obtain the approval from the Government, that even assuming that the land acquired was not required by the requisitioning authority i.e., the second respondent-HUDA, still, it is the policy of the Government to proceed with the land acquired by way of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in a different way. 12. It is his further contention that, in fact, it is the policy of the Government to acquire land for some public purpose to raise Townships and, therefore, regardless of the fact that the requisitioning authority is not inclined to utilize the said land for the purpose for which it was acquired and requested to denotify certain extent of land as contemplated under Section 48 of the Act. In other words, it is the serious contention of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents that the Government can proceed with the land acquired in order to implement its policy of developing Townships and, therefore, the policy of the Government cannot be interfered with by this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In this connection, it is apposite to refer Section 6 of the Act, which is re-extracted hereunder, for ready reference. 6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose:-- (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, when appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary of such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders, and different declarations may be made, from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A, sub-section (2).” 14. As pointed out by the learned single Judge, a bare perusal of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that the District Collector, who is authorized by the Government to perform the duties contemplated under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act, must be satisfied with reference to the material on record as to whether the land under notification, may be in whole or in part, is needed for any public purpose or not? 15. It is an undisputed fact that the enquiry, as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, was conducted and during the course of enquiry, some of the farmers, including the petitioners, have represented that all of them were marginal farmers solely dependent on the agriculture and sought for withdrawal of acquisition proceedings insofar their extent of lands. 16. It is on record that considering the request of the small farmers and also reviewing the financial position of HUDA for completion of on going projects and proposed projects, the respondent No.2-HUDA had addressed a letter, bearing D.O.Lr.No.LA/46/2002, dated 05-06-2004, to the fourth respondent- District Collector, Ranga Reddy, duly marking copies to the Principal Secretaries of Revenue Department as well as Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, to delete an extent of Acs.272-18 guntas belonging to the small farmers, out of the total extent of land acquired. It was further indicated in the said letter that in view of the heavy involvement of funds to a tune of about Rs.454-00 Crores and analyzing the above position and involvement of huge expenditure, it was expedient to drop the acquisition proceedings of private land in Anthaipally village and to take a connectivity towards road by making 200 feet road from Jawaharnagar to Keesara road. 17. Therefore, it is obvious that the HUDA, which was the requisitioning authority to acquire the land, considering the heavy involvement of funds and in view of the pendency of various other on going projects, felt that there was no necessity of the lands belonging to the small farmers and further that it was enough to make a road of 200 feet from Jawaharnagar to Keesara Road. Consequently, the Land Acquisition Officer, HUDA had also addressed a letter, bearing No.LA/46/2002, dated 28-07-2004, with the details of financial implication in acquiring the said land and sought for approval of the Government for withdrawal of proposals under Section 48 (1) of the Act. 18. Pursuant to the request made by the HUDA, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, also addressed a letter, bearing No.G2/5380/2003, dated 11-08-2004, seeking invocation of withdrawal proposals under Section 48 (1) of the Act in order to denotify certain extent of land in the Gazette. 19. From the above, there is any amount of explicit consistency or cohesion in the perception of the HUDA and the District Collector about the non-requirement of certain extent of land acquired for the original purpose intended and the desirability of denotification of the same as long back as on 05-06-2004 and 11-08- 2004. 20. It is to be further seen that the proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Act were initiated by the District Collector, but not by the Government. Section 4 (1) of the Act postulates that the preliminary notification under the said section can be published subject to satisfaction of either the appropriate Government or the District Collector. 21. In the instant case, the land was initially requisitioned for acquisition by the HUDA and upon such requisition, it is the District Collector, who acted immediately and published a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In other words, the notification was issued not at the instance or satisfaction of the Government, but the District Collector, independently had taken a decision, considering the request of the HUDA, and issued notification for acquisition of the lands. 22. Therefore, we are of the view that the question of satisfaction of the Government before issuing Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not necessary. In such a case, the satisfaction of the District Collector shall have to be construed as the satisfaction of the Government, inasmuch as at his satisfaction the proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Act had emerged. 23. The learned Advocate General also contends that it is the policy of the Government to acquire the land and, therefore, the said policy cannot be interfered with nor can be challenged before any Court of law. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Advocate General relied on the correspondence in the Note File produced before this Court. 24. A perusal of the record produced before this Court would reveal that there was serious contemplation between the Government and other agencies of the Government, like APIIC, HUDA etc., and a committee was constituted primarily regarding laying of a Ring Road and also to develop Townships. However, we could not specifically identify whether there was any specific area, like the disputed land, which was under consideration for development of Township. We could also see that all the Government lands were kept under the custody of the HUDA for this purpose. That is how the Government land, abutting the land under the present acquisition, was handed over to the HUDA and in order to give effective frontage and also to improve accessibility and connectivity to Shameerpet Ghatkesar R & B Road, the present land was sought to be acquired. 25. Several meetings were also held by the Committee in connection with laying of Ring Road and development of Townships. We need not go into the other details. What we could perceive from the record is the Government and the other agencies, like APIIC, HUDA etc., were thinking of primarily laying a Outer Ring Road and at some of the places identified, Townships also were proposed to be developed, which fact cannot be disputed. Therefore, the contention of the learned Advocate General that as per the policy of the Government Townships have to be developed all along the Outer Ring Road cannot be disputed. 26. Now, the question that arises for consideration is, is it the definite policy of the Government to develop Townships, as was originally contemplated, behind the land under the present acquisition. To appreciate in a better manner, in between the main road and the Government land, a stretch of land under the present acquisition is existing. Therefore, in order to develop Townships in the Government land and also to have connectivity to the Shameerpet Ghatkesar R & B Road, the present land in an extent of Acs.272-18 guntas belonging to the small farmers was sought to be acquired. 27. From the records produced before this Court, we could also see that the proposals of the HUDA in connection with laying of Ring Road and development of Townships was approved by the Government. Therefore, in strict sense, it cannot be said that the Government had issued directions to the District Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer of the HUDA to acquire the land and, on the other hand, it is the proposals of the HUDA that were accepted by the District Collector and the Government, may be development of Townships also was one among the objects of the present acquisition. 28. This again is obvious from the letter, dated 05-06-2004, addressed by the HUDA, to the District Collector, duly marking copies to the Governmental authorities, stating inter alia that an extent of Acs.2,500 of Government land at Jawaharnagar village, Shameerpet Mandal in Ranga Reddy District was existing for development of Townships. The said land appears to be in interior, not having any connectivity to the main road. As such, it was thought to get the road facing by acquiring the land under the present acquisition. It was further stated that after analyzing the entire situation, the projects costs and development of Acs.2,500 of Government land would involve huge expenditure, it was felt desirable to drop the acquisition of the present lands. However, on the other hand, it was felt sufficient to lay a width of 200 feet road from Jawaharnagar to Keesara Road and the land required for that purpose only can be acquired, instead of acquiring the entire extent of about Acs.632-07 guntas and eventually permission was sought to delete an extent of Acs.272-18 guntas of land belonging to the small farmers from the present acquisition. 29. In another letter, dated 28-07-2004, addressed to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the HUDA had given a detailed account of the expenditure involved, which comes to more than Rs.454-00 Crores for laying of Outer Ring Road and development of Townships etc. Therefore, in view of the said huge financial implications, it was felt that it is not possible to acquire the said land and accordingly sought approval of the Government for invocation of withdrawal proposals under Section 48 (1) of the Act in order to denotify the said land in the Gazette. 30. It further appears from the record that the HUDA had addressed a letter, bearing No.B2/5563/02, dated 13-10- 2006, to the Secretary to Government, M.A. & U.D. Department, Hyderabad, stating that since the Government was contemplating to develop model Townships with the active participation of the farmers as shareholders, whose lands have been taken in the acquisition proceedings, it appears that instructions have been issued by the Government to work in that direction and explore the possibilities of involvement of farmers in that process. It further appears from the said letter that some of the pattadars have approached this Court and obtained interim orders, dated 23-08-2006, in W.P.Nos.16064 and 15569 of 2006. 31. But, it is to be noticed that the said letter was addressed by the HUDA changing its’ earlier stand to withdraw the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the present land. This obviously is because of the intention of the Government to explore the possibilities to develop model Townships by making the farmers as shareholders. 32. Here, what is to be further noticed is, the change in the stand of the HUDA is obviously subsequent to the Declaration, dated 31-08-2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act, which fact also was noticed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order. Therefore, even assuming that it is the policy of the Government to develop Townships, it is borne out from the record that the said contemplation insofar as acquisition of the present lands was not feasible even according to the HUDA and the District Collector and, therefore, the Government appears to have asked the HUDA to explore the possibilities of making the farmers as shareholders in the development of Townships, whose lands have been acquired under the present acquisition. But, the same could not fructify because of the writ petitions filed by some of the pattadars were pending before this Court. That fact was taken note of by the HUDA itself, in its letter, dated 13-10-2006. 33. Therefore, merely because there was a policy of the Government it shall not be understood that any policy, which was felt not possible for implementation, as was pointed out by the HUDA and the District Collector, cannot be construed as a sustainable policy. In other words, it is the policy which cannot be executable and such apparently in-executable policies cannot be attached with any rationality. 34. Further, we are unable to discern any valid and comprehensible reason to acquire the entire extent of Acs.632-07 guntas of land when the HUDA had expressed its inability to execute and undertake the task of development of Townships because of various financial constraints and felt that only that much of land with a width of 200 feet is sufficient to lay a connecting road from Jawaharnagar to Keesara Road. 35. As already pointed out, even the letter, dated 13-10-2006, addressed by the HUDA changing its version is subsequent to the initiation of proceedings for Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 36. Now, the main question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Declaration proceedings under Section 6 of the Act was initiated by the District Collector, who is the competent