WA/2586/2005 of Ch. Kiron, Vs The District Collector, on 28 December 2005

Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ

Feeling dissatisfied with partial success before the learned Single Judge, theappellants have filed this appeal and prayed that the proceedings initiated bythe respondents for acquisition of land comprised in Survey No.90/1 situated atGachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy Districtmay be quashed.

A perusal of the record shows that in the writ petition filed by them, theappellants had challenged notification dated 6.12.2003, as amended on8.12.2004, and notification dated 9.12.2004 issued by Collector, Ranga Reddyfor acquisition of land for formation of outer ring road at Gachibowli (V),Serilingampally (M), Ranga Reddy District. They averred that notification dated8.12.2004 issued by District Collector for amendment of earlier notificationdated 6.12.2003 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short ‘the Act’) as also notification dated 9.12.2004 issued under section 6of the Act were liable to be quashed because of the non-compliance of themandate of the relevant provisions.

The learned Single Judge, after examining various points raised by theappellants in support of their challenge to the impugned notifications, quashednotification dated 9.12.2004, but upheld the one issued under section 4(1) of theAct with a direction that further proceedings be conducted in accordance withlaw.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that notification issued under section4(1), as amended on 8.12.2004, is liable to be quashed because the same hadnot been published in accordance with law. He emphasized that twonewspapers in which the notice is said to have been published do not have anycirculation in the locality and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as‘publication’ within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Act.

Learned Special Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that in furtherance ofthe liberty given by the learned Single Judge to the appellants, they can raiseall objections to the acquisition of the land in question by filing appropriateapplication before the Land Acquisition Collector who is expected to hold Learned counsel for the appellants says that in view of the statement of thelearned Special Counsel, his clients may be permitted to withdraw this appealwith liberty to raise objections before the Land Acquisition Collector. He furthersays that the time fixed by the learned Single Judge for filing objections may beextended.

In our opinion, the last mentioned request made by the learned counsel isreasonable and merits acceptance.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to theappellants to raise all objections including the one relating to notification issuedunder Section 4(1) of the Act. We also direct that if the appellants file theirobjections within a period of ten days from today, the competent authority shallconsider and decide the same in accordance with law.

G.S. SINGHVI, C.J.

Date:28-12-2005

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

Pv/vtv

HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT APPEAL No.2586 OF 2005

Between:

Ch. Kiron, S/o. Sri Ramoji Rao,aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,R/o.3, Chikoti Gardens, Begumpet,Hyderabad & 3 others

AND

The Collector, Ranga Reddy District & another