WP/4047/2009 of Repaka Durga Suresh Babu, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer AND District Collector, on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

It is the minimum expected and sacred responsibility of theauthorities to safeguard and protect the Constitutional and Statutory rightsof the citizens, otherwise there is absolutely no meaning for our valuebased democratic system and the dreams of our Constitutional Draftsmen. The Laws are made for the betterment of the society and to safeguard anduphold the values in the society. Therefore, the actions of the authoritiesmust necessarily be in consonance with law, but not in breach of law. Theactions of the statutory authorities should necessarily be in the direction ofenhancing and strengthening the confidence of the people in the system. Loss of confidence of the people in the system would undoubtedly result inunrest and chaotic situation in the society and the same is not a good signin the interest of the nation.

2. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, in clear and unequivocalterms, mandates that no citizen of this country, shall be deprived of his/herproperty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. TheLand Acquisition Act, 1894 is an ex-propreitary legislation, whichauthorizes and empowers the State and its instrumentalities to acquire theprivate properties of the citizens without reference to their consent. Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the functions under the saidlegislation are required to adhere to and follow the same scrupulously andmeticulously and any deviation from the mandatory requirements of lawwould render the entire proceedings invalid. The issue in the present caserequires consideration in the light of the above aspects.

3. In the instant writ petition, challenge is to draft notification issuedunder Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’)vide Roc No.G2/SW/357/2007 dated 16.10.2007 and the order videproceedings No.SW/357/2007 (G2) dated 14.8.2008 issued by the DistrictCollector, West Godavari, Eluru under Section 5-A of the Act. The District Collector issued the said draft notification, proposing to acquire an extentof Ac.0-90 cents of land in S.No.1120/P of Appanacheruvu GramPanchayat, Penumadam Shivar, Podur Mandal, West Godavari District,which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is in Palakol RuralMandal now. The purpose of acquisition is establishment of a burialground. Petitioner herein submitted his objections under Section 5-A of theAct on 26.11.2007. The District Collector/Respondent herein, by way of anorder vide proceedings Roc.No.SW/357/2007 (G2) dated 14.8.2008,rejected the said objections. Calling in question, the legal substantiality ofthe said draft notification and the order of rejection passed by the DistrictCollector, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. This Court while issuing rule nisi on 2.3.2009, granted interim stay inW.P.M.P.No.5289 of 2009. Now a vacate application videW.V.M.P.No.2863 of 2014, seeking to vacate the said order, supported bya counter affidavit is filed by the respondent herein, denying the avermentsmade in the affidavit filed in support of the writ affidavit and in the directionof justifying the impugned proceedings.

5. Heard Sri Radhakrishna Polisetty, learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for Respondent,apart from perusing the material available on record.

6. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner

(1) The proceedings under challenge are erroneous, contrary to law,highly arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to the very spirit and object ofthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2) In view of the availability of alternative Government lands, the veryacquisition of private land belonging to the petitioner is unwarranted andimpermissible.

(3) The remarks offered by the Revenue Divisional Officer to theobjections of the petitioner herein are highly unreasonable and not inaccordance with law.

(4) The District Collector failed to consider the objections of the petitionerherein and erroneously endorsed the remarks of the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, which is untenable and not in tune with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act.

(5) The District Collector failed to take into account that the lands of themembers of the petitioner’s family were acquired earlier also.

(6) The Gram Panchayat also passed a resolution for allotment ofalternate Government land.

7. Submissions/contentions of the learned Government Pleader

(1) There is no illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned proceedingsand in the absence of the same, the present writ petition is notmaintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2) In view of the suitability and the inevitability, the subject land isproposed for acquisition and the petitioner herein has other lands also.

(3) The objections submitted by the petitioner herein were thoroughlyand meticulously considered and the District Collector rejected the sameand the said rejection is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

8. In the above background, now the issue that emerges forconsideration before this Court is whether the proceedings underchallenge are in accordance with law.

9. According to the petitioner herein, he has a total extent of Ac.3-24cents in R.S.No.1120 and the proposed land, admeasuring Ac.0-98 centsforms part of the same. Expressing discontent against the proposedacquisition, the petitioner herein submitted his objections, wherein hecategorically stated about repeated acquisition of their lands at periodicalintervals for one purpose or the other by the authorities and the availabilityof alternative lands of the Government and the resolution of the GramPanchayat.

10. It is a settled and well established principle of law that right to objectthe acquisition as provided to the land owners under Section 5-A of theAct, is a very valuable and precious right and is a human right and a rightakin to fundamental right. The authorities entrusted with the function ofconsidering the objections are required to adopt an objective, practical andpragmatic approach while considering the same and the said right to havethe objections considered cannot be dealt with nor it can be viewed in amechanical, routine and cavalier manner. The objections shouldnecessarily be considered in an objective way. The objective andmeticulous consideration of the objections is an indispensable andmandatory duty and obligation of the authorities. In the instant case, a bareperusal of the order of rejection passed by the District Collector on14.8.2008 manifestly demonstrates that except extracting the remarks ofthe Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector failed to consider andanalyze any one of the objections raised by the petitioner independentlyand any such objective consideration by the Collector is conspicuouslyabsent and this is undoubtedly fatal to the case of the respondent herein.

11. Yet another aspect, which requires to be examined by this Court iswhether the Respondent is justified in proposing to acquire the private landof the petitioner when admittedly Government lands are available in thevillage and when there is a resolution of the Gram Panchayat also in thisregard for allotment of the said land. The information available on recordclearly shows that the Gram Panchayat passed Resolution No.61 on30.11.2004 resolving to set apart land in R.S.No.1109 of the village forburial ground. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v.

State of Haryana and others[[1]]at paragraph 26 held that “beforeacquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalitiesshould, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specifiedpublic purposes and if the acquisition of private land becomes absolutelynecessary, then too, the concerned authorities must strictly comply with therelevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice.” In the instantcase, as evident from the material available before this Court, the land proposed by the Gram Panchayat by way of resolution is 20 cents. TheRespondent authorities in their counter are seeking to sustain theircontention contra by contending that the said Government land is of 70links only. The said measurement, as per the counsel for the petitionerapproximately comes to 40 feet and by any stretch of imagination, it cannotbe said that it is not sufficient for burial ground in the teeth of the resolutionpassed by the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the justification sought to beoffered by the respondent in this regard, in the definite opinion of this Court,is highly preposterous. It is also the contention of the learned counsel forthe petitioner, while referring to the plan annexed to the present writpetition, that if the proposed acquisition is allowed to stand, there will notbe any access to the rest of the land of the petitioner.

12. Another significant aspect is that the lands of the family members ofthe petitioner were acquired on a number of occasions earlier for onepurpose or the other by the authorities and once again the subject land issought to be acquired by way of compulsory acquisition. In the consideredview of this Court, when alternative Government lands are available andwhen there is a resolution passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat forallotment of the alternative land for the purpose of establishing a burialground, repeated acquisition of the lands belonging to one particular familyis highly arbitrary and blatant infraction of Articles 14 and 300-A of theConstitution of India. Therefore, the impugned proceedings suffer frommultiple infirmities and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In thesecircumstances, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation nor anytraces of doubt to hold that the impugned proceedings are neithersustainable nor tenable in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting asidethe draft notification issued vide proceedings Roc.No.G2/SW/357/2007dated 16.10.2007 and the order vide proceedings No.SW/357/2007 (G2)dated 14.8.2008 issued by the District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru. Asa sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Date: 30.12.2014

DA

______________

A.V.SESHA SAI, J

DA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

Date: 30.12.2014

Between:

Repaka Durga Suresh Babu

Petitioner

And

The Land Acquisition Officer &District Collector,West Godavari, Eluru.Respondent [1]AIR 2012 SC 468