WP/17621/2011 of Konduru Padmavathi, Vs District Collector, Nellore District. on 29 December 2011

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash notification,dated 12.01.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’).

The petitioner is owner of Acs.20.30 cents of land comprised invarious survey numbers of Menakur Village, Naidupet Mandal, NelloreDistrict which was proposed to be acquired under the impugnednotification for the purpose of establishment of an industrial park. Theonly plea on which the petitioner questioned the validity of theimpugned notification is that respondent No.3 being a company, theprocedure envisaged under Part VII of the Act has not been followed,and thereby the whole land acquisition proceedings have beenvitiated.

At the hearing, Smt.A.Anasuya, learned counsel for thepetitioner, stated that no proper opportunity was given to the petitionerto put forth her objections and that acquisition of agricultural land forindustrial purpose is illegal and unreasonable.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf ofrespondent No.3, wherein it is inter alia stated that the procedure hasbeen scrupulously followed under the provisions of the Act inpublication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, holding ofenquiry under Section 5A of the Act, publication of declaration underSection 6 of the Act and holding of award enquiry and passing award. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, itis stated that after completing the statutory formalities, enquiry wasconducted on 21.04.2007 and award was passed on 31.05.2007.

With respect to the submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the procedure envisaged in Part VII of the Act is notfollowed, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and SriP.Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3,submitted that the Supreme Court in Sooraram Pratap Reddy v.

District Collector, Ranga Reddy District[[1]]held that theinfrastructure development project undertaken by the StateGovernment and executed under the auspices of respondent No.3 fallswithin the expression of public purpose. While dealing with a similarcontention that procedure under Part VII should have been applied foracquiring the lands for development by respondent No.3, the SupremeCourt held as under:

“We would have indeed considered the contention ofthe learned counsel for the appellants closely in the light ofearlier decisions of this Court. We are, however, of the viewthat on the facts and in the circumstances of the presentcase, the Government was right in forming an opinion andreaching a satisfaction as to ‘public purpose’ and in initiatingproceedings under Sections 4 and 6 and in invoking Part II ofthe Act. We, therefore, refrain from undertaking furtherexercise. In our considered opinion, it is not necessary for usto enter into larger question in view of ‘fact situation’ in theinstant case.”

In P.Shirisha and another v. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Khairatabad, Ranga Reddy District and others[[2]], a learned Single Judge of this Court held that even ifthe land which is proposed to be acquired is sought to be allotted to athird party by the APIIC, the said acquisition proceedings do notrequire compliance with procedure under Part VII of the Act.

In view of these authoritative pronouncements, this submissionof the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected.

Conclusion

With regard to the submission of the learned counsel thatacquisition of the petitioner’s land is illegal and arbitrary, the petitionerhas not alleged any procedural illegalities or irregularities in thepublication of notification and declaration and holding of enquiries andpassing of award. Unless the petitioner points out any suchillegalities, the writ petition filed after passing of award cannot beentertained (See Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v.

Shah Hyder Beig and others[[3]]and C.Padma v. Dy.Secretary tothe Government of T.N.[[4]])

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in thewrit petition and hence, the same is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated27.06.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.21194, 31009 and36394 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.4676 of 2011 are disposed of asinfructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

29[th] December, 2011VGB

[1]2008 (7) SCJ 641 = (2008) 9 SCC 552[2]W.P.No.23633 of 2006, dated 13.08.20102008 (7) SCJ 641 = (2008) 9 SCC 552[2]W.P.No.23633 of 2006, dated 13.08.2010

[3]AIR 2000 SC 671

[4](1997) 2 SCC 627(1997) 2 SCC 627