HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19847 of 2009 Date: -03-2010 Between: Mr. Korrapati Vivekananda & another. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19847 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published on 18.06.2008, and the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, published in the Gazette on 19.06.2008, for acquiring the land to an extent of 60 square yards, including the petitioners’ land of 30 square yards in the premises bearing H.No.23-89/2, situated at Thyagarayanagar of Gaddiannaram village of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Petitioners claim to have purchased an open site admeasuring 400 square yards, equivalent to 334.4 square metres, in Survey Nos.127 and 130/1 of Gaddiannaram village of Saroornagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, from their vendors, by registered sale deed bearing document No.775 of 1995, dated 31.07.1995. It is stated that in the said land, they have constructed a house bearing No.23-89/2. 3. The Zonal Commissioner, East Zone of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, has sent a requisition to acquire the land to an extent of 60 square yards, including 30 square yards belonging to the petitioners in the premises bearing H.No.23-89/2, for the purpose of laying of storm water under ground drain. Based on the said requisition, the respondents have notified the above said land by invoking the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and publication of declaration in the Gazette under Section 6 of the Act, respondents have issued notices as contemplated under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, and have conducted Award inquiry and also passed the Award on 15.09.2009 in Award Proceedings No.A/838/2007. 4. In this writ petition, the acquisition proceedings are questioned mainly on the ground that the respondents have invoked the urgency clause illegally and there is also sufficient Government land available adjacent to the petitioners’ land, through which, there is an existing sewage/drainage pipe line, which can be used for the purpose of storm water drain. It is stated that as much as the existing pipeline is situated in the Government land abutting the petitioners’ land, the decision of respondents to lay another pipeline by spending huge amount instead of enhancing the capacity of the existing pipe line, is illegal. 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, while giving the particulars of the 4(1) Notification, declaration published under Section 6, and notices issued under Sections 9(3) and 10, and further notices under Section 12(2) of the Act, it is stated that the proposed underground drain is only meant for free flow of storm water. Further, it is stated that there is no Government land available at the vicinity of the land acquired. It is stated that if the proposed pipeline is not laid to drain out the water, there will be stagnation of water inside the colony, therefore, the present acquisition has become inevitable for easy flow of drain water. It is further stated that as the proposed storm water drain will pass- through the compound wall of the petitioners’ house, the respondent-authorities will take all necessary steps to lay the drain by undertaking necessary repairs to the said compound wall. It is pleaded that as much as the Award is already passed, it is not open for the petitioners to question the acquisition proceedings, at this stage. 6. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for respondents. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that as much as the petitioners have already constructed a house in the site purchased by them, the acquisition of said piece of land will affect their rights. It is submitted that having regard to the nature of acquisition, it is not that urgent so as to invoke the urgency clause, by dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further contended by the learned counsel that as much as there is an existing drainage line, which passes through the Government land, the respondents can widen the same for free flow of storm water, instead of acquiring the land of the petitioners for construction of a new line. 8. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of O.Balajojamma V. Govt. of A.P.[1] and also on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baburam V. State of Haryana[2]. 9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that there is abnormal delay and latches on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court. It is submitted that pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and also declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which were published on 18.06.2008 and 19.06.2008 respectively, Award inquiry was conducted and Award was also passed on 15.09.2009, determining the compensation payable to the petitioners. It is submitted that by the time the writ petition has come up for admission, the Award was already passed, and in that view of the matter, there is no ground to interfere with the acquisition proceedings, at this stage. It is further pleaded that there is no other Government land in the vicinity of the land proposed to be acquired, and as much as the proposed storm water drain to be laid is for the purpose of clearing the stagnated water, the said purpose cannot be served by increasing the width of the existing pipeline, which is a drainage line. It is submitted that as much as there is stagnation of water in the colony, based on the requisition received from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, acquisition proceedings are initiated, and having regard to the purpose for which the land is acquired, it cannot be said that there is no urgency. 10. In support of his arguments, the learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. V. State of Rajasthan[3]. 11. In this case, at the outset, it is to be noted that the writ petition was filed on 15.09.2009, and at first instance, it has come up for admission on 17.09.2009, whereas, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.06.2008, and the consequent declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 19.06.2008. Thereafter, Award inquiry was conducted by issuing notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, and thereafter, Award was also passed on 15.09.2009, even before the writ petition has come up for admission. Though it is the case of the petitioners that there is no urgency so as to invoke the urgency clause, but having regard to the fact that there was stagnation of water in the colony, it cannot be said that it is not an urgent one, so as to accept the plea of petitioners that respondents ought not to have invoked urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Though it is the case of the petitioners that there is a vacant Government land in the vicinity of their land, but from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is clear that there is no other vacant Government land at the vicinity of the land in question, so as to use the same for the purpose of laying storm water drain line. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, they have also explained that the existing line is sewage/drainage line, therefore, the same line cannot be used for the purpose of draining out the storm water. Further, it is to be noted that the respondents have stated that they will also undertake repairs to the compound wall of petitioners, if necessary. In that view of the matter, and in view of the advanced stage of proceedings, where Award is already passed, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned acquisition proceedings. 12. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners in the case of O.Balajojamma (1 supra), having taken possession of land, same was not used for the public purpose, and further, 80% of compensation was also not paid. In the said circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. 13. In the other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners in the case of Baburam (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that great care must be taken before invoking the provisions under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act. In the aforesaid case, when the land was acquired for the purpose of sewage treatment plant, and the same was not used for a considerable time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the appellant therein should get an opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Whether urgency exists or not, is a matter, which is to be judged in each and every case, with reference to the purpose of acquisition. When it is stated that there is stagnation of water in the colony, and to drain out the said water, a storm water drain is to be constructed, it cannot be said that there is no urgency. 14. In any event, in the case of Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. (3 supra), relied upon by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, wherein, the writ petition was filed after passing of the Award, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the objections to acquisition are not maintainable due to delay and latches on the part of the appellants therein. Similarly, in this case, it is to be noted that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 18.06.2008, and declaration under Section 6 was published in the Gazette on 19.06.2008, but the petitioners did not move immediately in the matter and even before the writ petition could come up for admission on 17.09.2009, the Award was already passed on 15.09.2009. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the writ petition is deserved to be dismissed on account of delay and latches on the part of petitioners in approaching this Court. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 2010 ajr [1] 2000 (5) ALD 322 [2] (2009) 10 SCC 15 [3] (2008) 4 SCC 695