WP/28135/2007 of Marreddy Sanjeeva Reddy, Vs The District Collector (LA), Krishna District on 28 December 2007

Conclusion

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in seeking to forcibly take away landadmeasuring Ac.0.38 cents and Ac.0.57 cents comprised in SurveyNos. 46/4 and 46/5 respectively situated at Chegantipadu Village,Thotlavalluru Mandal, Krishna District in pursuance of notificationdated 29.11.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitionershave stated that in pursuance of notification issued under Section 4(1)of the Act, where under the above-mentioned extents are proposed tobe acquired, a notice under Section 5-A was issued to them and inresponse to the same, they filed their objections on 22.12.2007 andattended the enquiry. The petitioners, however, stated that the said enquiry is a mere ritual and that even before passing of orders on theobjections filed by them, the officials of the respondents have enteredtheir land and are seeking to dispossess them.

Heard Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.In view of the fact that notice was issued to the petitioners, who,in turn, submitted their objections to respondent No.2, I am not inclinedto entertain the writ petition and dispose of the same on merits.

In exercise of the power of eminent domain, the State isempowered to acquire the lands of citizens for public purpose. In orderto see that such a power is not exercised arbitrarily or for collateralpurposes, the Act provides for certain safeguards. Section 5-A is onesuch measure by which the citizens are given an opportunity to raisetheir objections and the authority entrusted with the functions ofhearing the objections has an obligation to consider the sameobjectively and take a decision thereon before seeking to proceedfurther. Except stating that enquiry under Section 5-A is only a ritual,the petitioners have not adduced any evidence in support of the same.Under Section 4(2) of the Act, after notification under Section 4(1) wasissued and published in the manner prescribed therein, the officials ofthe State are entitled to enter the land for the purpose of takingmeasurements, fixing boundaries, etcetera. This act cannot beconstrued as an attempt on behalf of the officers to dispossess theowner of the land. There is no material produced by the petitioners toshow that the respondents are seeking to dispossess them evenbefore disposing of the objections filed by them. At any rate, the Courtcannot countenance such an action on the part of the respondents.

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction torespondent No.2 to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioners byaffording them an opportunity of personal hearing, if not already given.

It is, however, made clear that till the objections of the petitioners aredisposed of, they shall not be dispossessed from the property inquestion.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36770of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed.

28.12.2007

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Note:Issue CC by 31.12.2007. (bo) ksld