WP/34676/2012 of Uttam Chand Jain, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2012

Order:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to setaside declaration, dated 20-10-2012, published on 31-10-2012, in respect of the lands belonging to the petitionersand notified for acquisition.

In respect of Acs.10-36 ½ guntas of land, anotification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short ‘the Act’), was published on 16-09-2011. Questioning the said notification, the petitioners have filedWP.No.31652 of 2011 wherein they have questioned theauthority of the State Government in issuing the notificationunder Section 4 (1) of the Act without specific delegation bythe Union of India. On consideration of the pleas raised bythe petitioners, this Court has dismissed the said WritPetition in limini by Order, dated 15-12-2011. Subsequently,the petitioners filed their objections on 19-12-2011 whereinthey have requested for personal hearing. Again, thepetitioners have made another representation on 11-05-2012 in that regard. However, by MemoNo.22361/LA(A2)/2011, dated 20-10-2012, the respondentshave made declaration under Section 6 of the Act and published the same on 30-10-2012.

It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that therespondents have failed to afford them an opportunity ofpersonal hearing and also to communicate the purportedorder rejecting their objections under Section 5-A of the Act.

Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein itis inter alia averred that notice, dated 19-11-2011, issuedunder Section 5-A of the Act, fixing ‘08-12-2011’ as the dateof enquiry, was served on the petitioners on 26-11-2011 andthat the petitioners have not attended the said enquiry, butthey have submitted their objections on 19-12-2011. It is further averred that the objections of thepetitioners were considered and discussed in the Section 5-A enquiry report; that the enquiry report along with theproposals for draft declaration were submitted to thePrincipal Secretary to the Government, Revenue, (LandAcquisition) Department through the Collector, RangaReddy District, for approval; that the Principal Secretary hassigned the Section 5-A enquiry report with the directions tothe Collector to pass the speaking orders thereon andapproved the draft declaration on 20-10-2012 and that the Collector, while allotting theGazette Number, forwarded the draft declaration on 30-10-2012 for publication; that as a very short time of two dayswas left for publication of draft declaration, the same waspublished on 31-10-2012 and the Section 5-A enquiry report was returned by the Principal Secretary to the Governmentto the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, with a request toarrange for obtaining the speaking order on the Section 5-Aenquiry report.

In the instant case, the Principal Secretary toGovernment, Revenue (LA Department), has issued thenotification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, the objections by the land owners shall bemade to the Collector in writing, who shall give the objectoran opportunity of being heard in person or by any personauthorized by him in this behalf or by Pleader and shall, afterhearing all such objections and after making such furtherinquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a reportor make different reports in respect of different parcels ofsuch land to the appropriate Government, containing hisrecommendations on the objections, together with therecord of the proceedings held by him, for the decision ofsuch Government. Thus, under this provision, after hearingthe objections, the Collector shall send report to theappropriate Government, which, in the instant case, is theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh and it is the appropriateGovernment, which shall pass an order on such report. It isonly after passing appropriate order on considering thereport submitted under Section 5-A (2) of the Act that theland is needed for a public purpose that a declaration has tobe made to that effect by the Secretary of the Government.

On the own averments of the respondents in the counter-affidavit, the process of passing of appropriate orderby the Secretary to the State Government has not beencompleted as he has felt that the order rejecting thepetitioners’ objections requires reasons to be stated by theCollector. Even while asking the Collector to submit aspeaking order for rejecting the petitioners’ objections, thePrincipal Secretary has approved the draft declaration. Asonly two days time was left for publication of the draftdeclaration, lest the whole proceedings under Section 4 (1)would lapse, the Government had to hurriedly issuedeclaration under Section 6 of the Act. After all, the enquiryunder Section 5-A of the Act is not envisaged by theParliament as an empty formality. It is not the intendment ofthe Legislature to permit the Government to just go throughthe formalities of an enquiry without proper consideration ofthe objections and application of mind as to whether theland is really needed for acquisition for a public purpose. The satisfaction of the Government referred to in Section 6of the Act that the land is needed for a public purpose has tobe necessarily reflected in the order to be passed by thecompetent authority following enquiry under Section 5-A ofthe Act. Unless an appropriate order is passed regardingsuch satisfaction and communicated to the personsinterested, it cannot be said that the competent authority hascomplied with the requirement of Section 5-A of the Act in itsletter and spirit. The Apex Court time and again held thatthe opportunity provided under Section 5-A of the Act is very valuable and precious and that such an opportunity cannotbe denied to the land owners and the persons interested ina light hearted manner and without exhibiting theseriousness required in considering the objections of thelandowners (See Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai[[1]]and Radhy Shyam vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh[[2]]). Since the respondents failed tofollow the procedure prescribed by the Statute, thedeclaration made under Section 6 of the Act and publishedon 30-10-2012 cannot be sustained in law and the same is,accordingly, set aside.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to theextent indicated above.

Conclusion

As a sequel, interim order, dated 07-11-2012, asextended by further orders, is vacated andWPMP.No.44064 of 2012 is disposed of.

31[st] December, 2012 lur

______________________

(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

[1](2005) 7 SCC 627(2005) 7 SCC 627

[2](2011) 5 SCC 553(2011) 5 SCC 553