WP/26745/2009 of Kalaga Veer Bramhananda Rao Vs The District Collector on 31 December 2009

Conclusion

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel on record.

2. This court issued rule nisi on 10-12-2009.

3. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus todeclare the action of the respondents in not withdrawing thenotification of proceedings, under Section 4 (1) of the LandAcquisition Act of the first respondent in proceedingsNo.G2/3971/2008 dated 09-07-2008 published in local newspaperregarding Land Acquisition proceedings in respect ofSy.No.115/1A, admeasuring Ac.8.00 cents belongs to thepetitioner even though the notification lapsed long back, as illegal,contrary to law and against principles of natural justice and passsuch other suitable orders.

4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition.

5. It is stated that the first respondent issued 4(1) Notificationfor acquiring the petitioner’s wet land in Sy.No.115/1A,admeasuring Ac.8.00 cents which was published in the localnewspaper along with some other properties of third parties.Subsequently, the second respondent issued a notice by referenceNo.1343/08 dated 29-07-2008 under Form-3 calling for theobjections and to attend for personal hearing on 16-08-2008.Immediately on receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted hiswritten objections to the second respondent and attended to thesecond respondent office on 16-08-2008 to submit his oralobjections. On that day, the second respondent without hearinganything simply had taken signatures in empty papers. Thepetitioner requested to hear the objections, but the secondrespondent declined to hear and asked the petitioner to come onsome other day, which will be informed by him. But, the secondrespondent never asked the petitioner to come to his office to hearoral objections. The petitioner further stated that before issuingnotice, list of beneficiaries were prepared by the M.D.O. ofKirlampudi. The actual beneficiaries at the time of issuingnotification were 100 members. Subsequently, the list ofbeneficiaries was verified by the third respondent and the thirdrespondent after through verification prepared a final list ofbeneficiaries of 39 only and a note was placed before the first andsecond respondents.

6. Further it is stated that the petitioner submitted a formalrepresentation after issuing the 4(1) Notification to withdraw theproceedings to acquire the petitioner’s agricultural land.Subsequently, even though petitioner made a representation to the respondents immediately after notification and filed objections asper the Form-3 notice dated 29-07-2008, but the 5-A enquiry wasnot conducted by the second respondent and at that time, thepetitioner made a representation dated 12-01-2009 with detailedobjections to the first and second respondents to withdraw thenotification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therepresentation dated 12-01-2009 is filed herewith for the perusal ofthis court. The contents of the representation dated 12-01-2009may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

7. It is also stated that as per the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act, Section 6 of the declaration has to be publishedwithin one year from the date of 4(1) Notification by therespondents. But, in the present case the 4(1) Notification waspublished on 09-07-2008. From the date of 4(1) Notification,declaration of Section 6 has to be published within one year fromthe 4(1) Notification i.e., 09-07-2008, so Section 6 declaration hasto be given on or before

09-07-2009. If Section 6 declaration is not given within one yearfrom the date of 4(1) Notification, the 4(1) Notificationautomatically lapsed.

8. It is further stated that even though the 4(1) Notificationlapsed automatically, the petitioner unable to do anything in thesaid land. Since, the petitioner is an agriculturist, when heapproached either to Nationalized Bank or Co-operative Bank orprivate persons for loan, they are denying to sanction loans, as theland is under the process of land acquisition proceedings of therespondent. It is stated that the first respondent sent a letter on06-07-2008 by reference No.3174 to the local Sub-Registrar Officenot to register any document in respect of the said land as it isunder Land Acquisition proceedings. The petitioner approached theSub-Registrar to execute a gift deed in favour of his married daughters, the Sub-Registrar declined to register the saiddocument under the guise of the letter from the respondents.

9. It is further stated that as the respondents failed to withdrawthe notification of proceedings under Section 4(1) of LandAcquisition Act of the first respondent in ProceedingsNo.G.2/3971/08 dated 09-07-2008 published in local newspaperregarding Land Acquisition proceedings in respect ofSy.No.115/1A, admeasuring Ac.8.00 cents belongs to thepetitioner, even though the notification lapsed long back. It isstated that the petitioner is facing day-to-day problem in gettingthe agriculture loan or in registering gift deed and suffering mentalagony and sustaining irreparable loss. In such circumstances, thewrit petitioner approached this court.

10. It is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader forLand Acquisition that the alternative lands are available and in thelight of the same, it may not be necessary to further proceed withthe acquisition proceedings.

11. In the light of the facts and circumstances, since notificationhad lapsed, by operation of law, the writ petitioner has bound tosucceed.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extentindicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

December 31, 2009.PN

___________________

P.S. NARAYANA, J

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION No.26745 of 2009

December 31, 2009