ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE VISAKHAPATNAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, VISAKHAPATNAM
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Obul Reddi, J. -
(1.) These three appeals are preferred against the common judgment rendered by our brother Madhava Reddy, J., dismissing the Writ Petitions Nos. 2232, 2199 and 2200 of 1968 filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notifications in G. O. R. T. No. 1097, Municipal. Administration, dated 13-2-1967 and G. O. R. T. No. 574 Municipal Administration, dated. 8-8-1967.
(2.) The main question that is raised by Sri D. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is that there is no warrant for dispensing with the procedure laid down under S. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to "the Act), as the lands acquired are neither waste nor arable lands so as to entitle the Government to exercise special powers under S. 17 (4) of the Act. The appellant in Writ appeal No. 490 of 1989 is a temple represented by its trustee, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 491 of 1969 is a temple represented by its trustee, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 491 of 1969 is a proprietor of a hotel and the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 535 of 1969 is an Advocate practicing at Visakhapatnam. The two notifications issued by the Government Andhra Pradesh show that the land acquired is needed for a public purpose, to wit, for widening the main road at Visakhapatnam. Having regard to the urgency of the matter, the procedure prescribed in Section 5-A was dispensed with and a declaration was made under S. 6 of the Act. On receipt of notice under S. 9 of the Act, the appellants moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that the procedure laid down under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be by-passed or dispensed with in respect of the lands notified, as they do not come within the meaning of arable or waste land specified n sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. The applications were resisted by the respondents contending inter alia that the acquisition was for a public purpose viz., to widen the main road in Visakhapatnam city and therefore the action taken under Section 17 (4) of the Act cannot be challenged.
(3.) Mr. Justice Madhaya Reddy dismissed the petition holding that lands which from part of a building or house site in a town like Visakhapatnam could not be regarded as arable land, nor does not be regarded as arable land, nor does not notifications show that the Government treated them as waste or arable lands.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.