IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 26177 of 1999 Between: 1 Gummalla Venkayamma w/o Surya Rao R/o Vetlapale Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Gummalla Ammanna S/o Surya Rao R/o Vetlapale Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Vedulla Atchanna S/o Yerra Abbulu @ Manikyalu R/o Vetlapale Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Goli Mangayamma W/o Veeraju R/o Vetlapale Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Kondapalli Mangadevi W/o K.V.Satyanarayana R/o Vetlapale Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P.,Rep.by its Secretary,(IPR),DEpt., Secretariate Buildings,Hyderabad. 2 The District Colelctor,East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Special Deputy Collector(L.A)A.P.I.I.C.,at Visakhaptanam Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Special Deputy Collector (L.A).A.P.I.I.C.,Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 The A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation,Rep.by its Managing Director,Parisharma bhavan,Basheerbagh,Hyd., .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent 2 ?& 4 in proposing to anquire the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.2.22 cents in S.No.931/1B AC.10.92 in S.No.931/1C,AC.733 cents in S.No.908/1C,AC.0.60 cents in S,.No.,931/1D AC.1.00 in S.No.931/1 and Ac.1-32 cents in S.No.908/1 of Peddapuram Village,Peddapuram Mandal,East Godavari District, vide 4 (1) notification dt.5-2-99,and Sec.6 declaration published in Hindud Daily dt.21-10-99 as arbitrary,illegal,without jurisdiction,unconstitutional,null and void and contrary to the provisions of Act 68 of 1984 and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the petitioners lands Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26177 of 1999 ORDER: Five petitioners filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in proposing to acquire their (petitioners) land in various extents situated at Peddapuram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District as per notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, for brevity) dated 05.02.1999 and declaration under Section 6 of LA Act dated 21.10.1999 as published in ‘Hindu’ daily newspaper as illegal and unconstitutional, and for a consequential direction to respondents not to acquire the land. During pendency of writ petition, petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.93 of 2008 seeking to amend prayer in writ petition as below (which was ordered by this Court on 19.02.2008). It is therefore prayed in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Authorities in proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Acs.12.84 in survey No.908/2A and 931/1, Ac.7-33 ½ in survey No.908/1, Acs.1.50 in survey No.931/1 and Acs.1.32 in survey No.908/1 (Total extent of Acs.22.99 ½) situated at Peddapuram village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, vide 4(1) Notification dated 05.02.1999 and Sec.6 Declaration published in Hindu daily dated 21.10.1999, and Award No.10/2007, dated 20.12.2007 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and consequently direct the Respondents not to acquire the Petitioners lands, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. First petitioner is mother of second petitioner. They own an extent of Acs.12.84 land in survey Nos.908/2A and 931/1. Likewise third petitioner owns an extent of Acs.7.33 ½ land in survey No.908/1, fourth petitioner owns an extent of Acs.1.50 land in survey No.931/1 and fifth petitioner owns an extent of Acs.1.32 land in survey No.908/1. Second respondent, namely, District Collector, East Godavari District, proposed to acquire their land for public purpose of development of industrial area by fifth respondent, namely, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). Notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act was issued and published in East Godavari District Gazette No.2 of 1999, dated 05.02.1999. Petitioners allege that on a request made by them, their land was inspected by third respondent, namely, Special Deputy Collector and LAO, APIIC, Visakhapatnam, and fourth respondent, namely, Special Deputy Collector and LAO, APIIC, Kakinada, and they agreed to drop proceedings as Government already acquired large extent of land for industrial development. Nonetheless, third respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of LA Act and published the same in ‘The Hindu’ English daily newspaper on 21.10.1999. Assailing acquisition on the ground of incompetency of third respondent to issue declaration under Section 6 of LA Act, instant writ petition is filed. This Court, while admitting writ petition on 22.12.1999, granted interim stay of all further proceedings including dispossession of petitioners. Writ petition was listed for final hearing and was dismissed for default on 27.06.2007. Petitioners then moved W.P.M.P.No.22607 of 2007 seeking to set aside said order dismissing writ petition for default. This Court passed orders on 28.01.2008 setting aside said order. In the meanwhile, third respondent passed award No.10 of 2007 dated 20.12.2007 after issuing notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of LA Act to petitioners. After receiving notices, it appears that petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.94 of 2008 seeking to grant stay of dispossession pursuant to said award. This Court, therefore, passed orders on 04.01.2008 directing to maintain status quo. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Government of Andhra Pradesh and District Collector, East Godavari District, filed no counter- affidavit. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed separate counter-affidavits. Though purpose for acquisition of land is justified, allegation made by petitioners that third respondent is not competent to issue declaration under Section 6 of LA Act is not specifically denied. In the counter- affidavit filed by fourth respondent, a reference is made to a notification, vide G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 10.03.1987, issued by Government, whereby and whereunder District Collectors are authorized to exercise and discharge powers of State Government under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17(4) of LA Act for the purpose of acquisition of land for establishment of industrial estates, industrial development areas and industrial housing complexes undertaken by APIIC. Learned counsel for petitioners raised various contentions with regard to competency and jurisdiction of third respondent to issue declaration under Section 6 of LA Act, legality or otherwise of the procedure followed by second respondent while acquiring land for APIIC and bar for acquisition on the ground that petitioners are small/marginal farmers. However, emphasis is on the question of jurisdiction and competency of Special Deputy Collector-cum-LAO to issue notification under Section 6 of LA Act. The right to property is no more a fundamental right by reason of deletion of Article 19(1)(f) from Part III of the Constitution of India (CoI). Nonetheless it is mandate of Article 300A CoI that a person shall not be deprived of his/her property save by authority of law. LA Act gives authority to State Government to acquire land. While doing so, one of the safeguards provided against arbitral acquisition is strict compliance with procedure contemplated under law. Sections 4 and 6 of LA Act empower appropriate Government to issue notification/declaration proposing to acquire land. Appropriate Government as defined in Section 3(ee) of LA Act, means State Government when land is acquired for their purpose and Central Government when land is acquired for union. The term ‘Collector’ means Collector of a District. Section 3-A of LA Act was added by Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act No.22 of 1976. This provision permits State Government to delegate its powers to District Collector. In exercise of this power, State Government issued notification, vide G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 10.03.1987 which reads as below. G.O.Ms.No.235 Dated:10.03.1987 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3-A of the LA Act, 1854 (Central Act 1 of 1854), the Governor of AP directs that all the District Collectors shall exercise all powers conferred discharge all the duties imposed on the State Government Under Section 4, 5-A, 6 and sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act, for the purpose of acquisition of land for establishment of Industrial Estates, Industrial Development Areas and Industrial Housing Complexes undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. Delegation of powers by State Government is to District Collector to exercise powers and discharge duties under Sections 4, 5-A, 6 and 17(4) of LA Act. Therefore, in plain terms Special Deputy Collector-cum- LAO is not competent to issue any notification under any provision of LA Act. Indeed Section 3-A of LA Act does not even empower State Government to delegate their powers under Sections 4,5-A, 6 and 17(4) of LA Act to any officer below the rank of District Collector, though for attending to other duties connected with land acquisition some of the officers can be authorized. In Kilarapu Satyavati v. District Collector[1] in the contest of Sections 3-A, 4(1) and 6 of LA Act, this Court considered the question whether it is competent for District Collector to acquire land for establishment of a compost yard for municipality. Making reference to General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No.X of 1897) and Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 (A.P.Act No.I of 1891), this Court laid down as below. The terms “Collector” or “District Collector” are not defined in the Act. Section 3(11) of General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No.X of 1897) (hereafter called, the Central Act) defines the term “Collector” as to mean in a Presidency town, the Collector of Calcutta, Madras or Bombay, as the case may be, and elsewhere, the Chief Officer incharge of the revenue administration of a District. Section 3(6) of the A.P. General Clauses Act, 1891 (A.P.Act No.I of 1891) (hereafter called, the State Act) defines “Collector” so as to include every officer, who for the time being is authorized to. Further the term “District Collector” is defined under Section 3(8) of the State Act as to mean the Chief Local Officer incharge of the revenue administration of a District. There is not much difference in the definition of the term “Collector” or “District Collector” in the Central or State Act. The Officer, who is Chief Officer incharge of the revenue administration of a District, is the District Collector and when such powers are conferred on an Officer who is authorized to exercise the powers of a Collector, such officer also comes within the definition of “District Collector”. As seen from the definition of the “Collector”, in Section 3 (c) of the Act, the definition is in two parts. One is descriptive part, according to which, “Collector” means the Collector of the District. Within this expression comes the “District Collector”, who is the Chief Officer of revenue administration of the District. There is inclusive part in the definition, according to which, a Deputy Commissioner and any Officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act is also District Collector. The term “appropriate Government” is defined in Section 3(ee) of the Act as either the State Government, when the land is acquired for the purpose of the State and Central Government when the land is acquired for the purpose of the Union. This definition becomes relevant in the context of acquiring the land and initiating the procedure therefor as contained in Chapter-II of the Act. In G. Ramesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2] a question arose whether it is competent to Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to amend improperly/inadequately stamped document under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act, for brevity). Said provision empowered Collector to amend document and the term Collector was defined under Section 2(9) of Stamp Act, means Collector of a District. Placing reliance on Kilarapu Satyavati (supra), this Court laid down that it is not competent to RDO to amend document under Section 33 of Stamp Act. Relevant observations are as under. …..the officer, who is in-charge of the Revenue Administration of the District is the District Collector and any officer who is appointed as Collector under Section 2(9)(b) of the Stamp Act, also comes within the definition of ‘Collector’ under Section 2(9) of the Stamp Act. Here, it is also relevant to refer to clause (10) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, which defines “Chief Controlling Revenue Authority” or “Chief Revenue Authority” shall, inter alia, means such authority as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint………There is also no such notification issued by the Government delegating their powers under Section 2(9) of the Stamp Act to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or any notification issued by the latter under Section 76-A of the Stamp Act in exercise of such delegated powers. Indeed, it is clearly admitted that so far Government or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority have not issued any notification authorizing the Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise powers exercisable by the District Collector under Sections 33, 38 and 40 of the Stamp Act…… In this case, admittedly declaration under Section 6 of LA Act issued by third respondent is without jurisdiction. Therefore, entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. As award No.10 of 2007 dated 20.12.2007 was passed pursuant to a declaration under Section 6 of LA Act, which was without jurisdiction, the same cannot be sustained. In the result, for the above reasons, writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18th March, 2008 GHN To 1 The Government of A.P.,Rep.by its Secretary,(IPR),DEpt., Secretariate Buildings,Hyderabad. 2 The District Colelctor,East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Special Deputy Collector(L.A)A.P.I.I.C.,at Visakhaptanam Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Special Deputy Collector (L.A).A.P.I.I.C.,Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 The A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation,Rep.by its Managing Director,Parisharma bhavan,Basheerbagh,Hyd., 6.2CCs to GP for Land Acquisition. 7.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSV} [1] 2006(2) ALD 342 = 2006(6) ALT 314 [2] 2006(6) ALD 136