WP/27712/2007 of P. Chandrakala Vs The District Collector, Krishna, on 26 December 2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set asidenotification, dated 05.10.2007 issued under Section 4(1) anddeclaration, dated 05.12.2007 issued under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and violative ofArticles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner claims to have been gifted extents of 54 cents and48 cents in R.S.Nos.734/2 and 734/3 respectively (in all, an extent ofAc.1.02 cents of land) in Kalidindi Village and Mandal, Krishna District,under Gift Deed, dated 20.03.2004 towards pasupukumkuma. Shefurther claimed that the gift deed was registered as documentNo.2606/2007 in the office of Sub-Registrar at Kaikalur. Notification, dated 05.10.2007 was issuedunder Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the said extents ofland along with other lands for providing house sites to weakersections. In response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act,the petitioner filed her objections. By order, dated 17.11.2007, DistrictCollector, Krishna, Machilipatnam rejected the objections filed by thepetitioner. Later, declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act waspublished on 05.12.2007. These proceedings are challenged in thiswrit petition.

Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land to anextent of Ac.1.02 cents, which is proposed for acquisition was given to the petitioner by her father towards pasupukumkuma in the year 2004at the time of her marriage and the gift deed was registered under aseparate document in the year 2007. He, therefore, submitted thatrespondent No.1 committed a serious error in holding that the said giftdeed was executed evidently for the purpose of avoiding acquisition. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of K.Yadaiah v.Government of Andhra Pradesh[[1]]and Hindustan PetroleumCorporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others[[2]], andcontended that no proper enquiry was held by respondent No.2 and,therefore, the petitioner is denied a reasonable opportunity of beingheard.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner and I have not felt persuaded to accept thesame. A perusal of order, dated 17.11.2007 passed by respondentNo.1 shows that enquiry was held on 01.11.2007 by respondent No.2and on the basis of the same, he submitted his remarks. The remarksof respondent No.2 extracted by respondent No.1 in the said ordershow that in support of her plea that she was gifted the land proposedto be acquired, she produced a plain paper agreement purported to bea gift deed. Having considered the same, respondent No.2 opined thatthe said transaction is only an after thought and that the same is not agenuine one, intended only for the purpose of defeating the presentland acquisition proceedings. It is further found that the family of SriK.Venkata Satyanarayana, father of the petitioner, who purportedlyexecuted sale deed, is having Ac.18.04 cents and that their interestwill not be affected by acquiring Ac.1.02 cents.

Having carefully considered the reasons given by respondentNos.1 and 2, I am of the view that they do not suffer from any material

illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitionerfailed to file the alleged registered gift deed before respondent No.2and what was produced before him was only an unregistereddocument purported to be a gift deed. An unregistered documentpurporting to gift immovable property is contrary to the provisions ofSection 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence the same has novalidity in law. The respondents, in my view rightly, did not take thesame into consideration and drew a presumption that the same waspressed into service only for the purpose of avoiding acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the father ofthe petitioner owns Ac.18.04 cents of land. Therefore, the judgment ofthe Full Bench of this Court in K.Yadaiah v. Government of AndhraPradesh (1 supra), wherein it is held that the instructions issued by theGovernment not to acquire the lands of small farmers to the extentpossible, has no application to this case.

As regards the submission of the learned counsel that no properenquiry was held, it is not the case of the petitioner as could be seenfrom the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition that no enquiry was held at all. The petitioner merely averred“respondent No.2 without giving an appropriate opportunity of hearingand without conducting appropriate enquiry in the light of the principleslaid down in the decided cases while interpreting Section 5A of the Actthrough his proceedings bearing Rc.G4.4700/2007, dated 17-11-2007overruled the objections and informed the same to me which wasreceived on 30.11.2007.” The said statement of the petitionercontained in the affidavit is wholly equivocal and vague. The petitionerdid not explain what she meant of the phrase ‘appropriate enquiry’ andwhy the enquiry held by respondent No.2 is not an appropriate enquiry. Therefore, I am of the view that the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius ShapurChenai and others (2 supra) has no application to the facts of this case.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

26[th] DECEMBER, 2007

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

Note: furnish c.c. in four (4) days. B/o kvni [1]1983(1) ALT 233 (FB)[2]2005(7) SCC 627