THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16611 of 2007 (Dated : 13-08-2010) Between: Kakanaboyina Narasimha Rao S/o late Rosiah and another …Petitioners A n d Government of A.P rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16611 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus declaring the Notification dated 09.4.2007 in CK’s Rc.No.G4/1568/2007 issued under Section 4(1) and the notices issued by the 3rd respondent in proceedings in Rc.B2/744/2007 dated 9.6.2007 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.94/1, 95 and 96/1 B271/2 of Mangollu village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are:- (a) The 1st petitioner is the owner of Ac.1.93 cents comprising Survey Nos.94/1 and 95 and whereas the 2nd petitioner is the owner of Ac.1.57 cents comprising Survey No.96/1 B2 of Mangollu village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District. (b) The District Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District-2nd respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, `the Act’) proposing acquisition of the lands owned by the petitioners for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. Draft Notification came to be issued on 16.4.2007. Objections have been called for as provided under Section 5-A of the Act. As the petitioners failed to put on objections, the District Collector approved the Draft Declaration and the same came to be published on 10.5.2007 under Section 6 of the Act. The 3rd respondent issued notice in Form No.VII in Rc.No.B2/744/2007 dated 9.6.2007 as provided under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act directing the petitioners to be present before him for award enquiry. 3. The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the Draft Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing acquisition of the land for providing house sites to weaker sections. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to poor sections in the society and acquisition of their lands is wholly unwarranted. The lands in their occupation have been proposed for acquisition at the behest of local Congress I leaders. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to refer paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, which read as hereunder:- “3. I submit that the 2nd respondent has violated the procedure as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act while issuing Section 4(1) notification, inasmuch as he has not got published Section 4(1) notification in two popular daily newspapers as contemplated thereunder and also that he has not followed the other procedure contemplated in the said provision. He got published Section 4(1) Notification in a News paper, which is not a popular newspaper at all. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued notice in Form-7 in Rc.No.B2/744/2007 dated 9-6-2007 as provided under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act requiring us or our authorized agent to be present on 07-07-2007 before him with all particulars and objections, if any, to the measurements made under Section 8 of the Act. We are landless poor person having only the small extents of land, which is sought to be acquired now. There is malice behind the acquisition inasmuch as leaving the land of another individual which is adjacent to the road, my land is sought to be acquired, which is quite interior to the road. The 3rd respondent failed to conduct Section 5-A enquiry. 4. I submit that I am advised that the land acquisition proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, malafide and consequently get vitiated, inasmuch as the notifications issued under Section 4(1) by the 2nd respondent is bad for non-observance of the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act and that the respondents failed to public S.6 declaration which is mandatory. Further, acquisition of land from poor people like in a case like this is wholly unwarranted inasmuch as even admitting that proposed acquisition is to provide house sites to the weaker sections, the same cannot be done by acquiring land from poor people like us rendering us landless poor. Furthermore, in our village hardly there is any requirement of house sites for the villagers. It is only in order to wreck vengeance at the behest of the local Congress-I leaders, the present acquisition proceedings are vitiated. Accordingly, the notification issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Act and the notices issued under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act by the 3rd respondent are liable to be set aside.” 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 3.8.2007. An interim order came to be passed on the even date, vide W.P.M.P.No.21157 of 2007. The order dated 3.8.2007 reads as hereunder:- “ It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land of the petitioner was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 09/04/07; however no enquiry has been conducted, but notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act, have been issued. It is also sated that no enquiry notice was served on the petitioner. Hence there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings, pending further orders. Notice” 5. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter. They also moved W.V.M.P.No.354 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 3.8.2007 passed in W.P.M.P.No.21157 of 2007. When the vacate stay petition came up for hearing, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. The counter of the respondents, in brief, is:- Housing is one of the programmes identified under ‘INDIRAMMA Programme’ to meet the total demand and to achieve the object of providing of permanent houses to all under `INDIRAMMA Programme’. Mangollu village of Vatsavai Mandal is declared as a model and Adarsa village under ‘INDIRAMMA Programme’. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada along with the Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Vatsavai Mandal and Village Revenue Officer, Mangollu village inspected the lands in the village and found that the land bearing R.S.No.94/1, which is adjacent to the village, is suitable for providing house sites to the weaker sections under INDIRAMMA programme. Accordingly, a Draft Notification has been published in Krishna District Gazette on 12.4.2007, Vaartha daily newspaper on 16.4.2007, The Hindu daily newspaper on 16.4.2007 and in the locality on 17.4.2007. Notice under Section 5-A of the Act in Form No.III was sent to the petitioners requiring them to file objections, if any, for acquisition, and attend the enquiry. The petitioners refused to receive the said notice and they failed to place on record their objections. Thereupon, a Draft Declaration as provided under Section 6 of the Act came to be approved by the District Collector, vide Rc.No.G4/1568/07 dated 10-5-2007. Draft Declaration has been published in the District Gazette, two daily news papers and locality as follows: Sl.No. Mode of Publication Date of publication of Draft Declaration 1 Krishna District Gazette 14-5-2007 2 Andhra Bhoomi daily Newspaper 19-5-2007 3 Janatha daily News paper 20-5-2007 4 Local publication 20-5-2007 Notices under Section 9(3) and 10 were issued to the petitioners requiring them to attend the Award enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer on 7.7.2007. But the petitioners refused to receive the said notices and failed to attend the Award enquiry. Having failed to attend the award enquiry, petitioners approached this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and obtained interim order on 3.8.2007. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and hence, draft declaration published under Section 6 of the Act is not legal and proper and therefore, draft notification issued under Section 4(1) and draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act are liable to be set aside. He would also contend that the acquisition of lands owned by the petitioners is motivated one at the instance of the persons belonging to Congress-I party. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader (Land Acquisition), submits that the petitioners having failed to put on record their objections cannot be permitted to challenge either the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act or the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others[1], wherein it has been held that if no objections have been filed by the land owners under Section 5-A, logically Section 6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned. Para 8 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:- “( 8 ) IN connection with owners or persons interested who have not filed objections under S. 5a, in principle, it must be accepted that they had no objection to S. 4 notification operating in respect of their property. On the other hand, in respect of those who filed objections they might have locus standi to contend that S. 5A inquiry was not conducted properly, we, therefore, agree in principle with the view of the three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram's case (1997 AIR SCW 2513 : AIR 1997 SC 2564) that those who have not filed objections under S. 5a, could not be allowed to contend that the S. 5a inquiry was bad and that consequently S. 6 declaration must be struck down and that then the S. 4 notification would lapse. If, therefore, no objections were filed by the respondents, logically the S. 6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned”. 10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court, on 3.8.2010 directed the respondents to produce the entire file relatable to the acquisition of lands owned by the petitioners for providing house sites to the weaker sections in Mangollu village. Accordingly, the respondents placed before this Court the entire file. 11. I have gone through the file bearing No.B2/744/2001 placed before me. Section 4(1) notification came to be published in Vaartha daily newspaper dated 16.4.2007 and The Hindu daily newspaper dated 16.4.2007. Notices have been issued to the petitioners under section 5-A of the Act requiring them to put on their objections, if any. Both the petitioners refused to receive the notices issued in Form No.3. The report of the Village Revenue Officer, namely, Ch.V.Rao of Mangollu village has been appended to the notice sent to the petitioners. It is evident from the report that the petitioners refused to receive the notices. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported to the District Collector under letter dated 7.5.2007 with regard to refusal of the petitioners to receive the notices sent under Section 5-A of the Act. The text of the letter reads as hereunder:- “ I invite attention to the references cited. I submit that an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in R.S.No.94/1, 95 & 96/1 B2 of Mangollu village of Vatsavai Mandal was proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to weaker sections in the village. In this case the DN u/s 4(1) of the LA Act was approved by the Collector, Krishna vide G4/1568/2007 dated 09/04/2007 and it was published in the Krishna District Gazette No.69/2007 dt.12/04/2007. The substance of the said notification was also published in two daily Telugu News Papers i.e. in Vaartha on 16/04/2007 and in The Hindu on 16/04/2007 respectively. The locality publication has been done on 17/04/2007. Accordingly, with a view to conduct the enquiry notice U/s 5(A) of the LA Act, notices were sent to the land holders with a direction to attend enquiry on 05/05/2007 in Sub Collector’s Office, Vijayawada. But the land holders have refused to receive the notices. The Tahsildar Vatsavai has affixed the notices in the proposed land as well in Gram Panchayat Office, further this is informed by beat of Tom Tom in the locality. Hence, it is construed that the land owners have not utilized the opportunity u/s 5A of the LA Act. In the circumstances explained above, I submit herewith DD proposals for an extent of Ac.3.50 cents in RS No.94/1, 95 & 91/1b2 for acquisition for providing house sites under Indiramma Padhakam.” 12. Thereupon, the District Collector approved the Draft Declaration under letter dated 10.5.2007, vide Roc.G4/1568/2007. The Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be published in Janatha daily dated 20.5.2007 Andhra Bhoomi daily 19.5.2007, Krishna District Gazette on 14.5.2007 and local publication on 20.5.2007. Notice under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act has been sent to the petitioners and the same has been served on them. Page Nos.204 and 206 of the file contains the signature of the petitioners as a proof of receiving notice under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act. It is evident from the material brought on record that the petitioners refused to receive the notice requiring them to put on their objections. They failed to place on record their objections with regard to the proposed acquisition of land under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioners having failed to place on record their objections cannot be permitted to question Section 6 Draft Declaration, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip singh Uban and others ( 1 supra). Therefore, I find that the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The interim order granted on 3.8.2007 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.13-8-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16611 of 2007 (Dated : 13-08-2010) [1] (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 44