THANDRALA NARASAIAH Vs. PASTAPURAPU BHADRAIAH
LAWS(APH)-1972-9-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 10,1972

THANDRALA NARASAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
PASTAPURAPU BHADRAIAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Parthasarathi, J. - (1.) This is an appeal from the decision of Krishna Rao J. in Writ Petition No. 1223 of 1966, whereby a writ of Certiorari was issued quashing the Notification made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 17(4) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. Certain lands situated in the village of Nachupalli in Karimnagar District were sought to be acquired for providing House sites for Harijan families of the Village. By a Notification dated 11 -4-1U66, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh directed that in view of the urgency of the case the provisions of section 5-A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 shall not apply to the acqussition of the arable lands specified in the notification.
(2.) In the writ pitition the notification was challenged mainly on the ground that there was a colourable exercise of the power under Section 17(4) and that there was no urgency justifying the use of the power. Krishna Rao J., held that no material was placed before the court by the Government to show under what circumstances the opinion about the urgency of the acquisition was formed. It was pointed out that the request for the acquisition was made as long ago as 1962 and that the Notification under section 17(4) was made nearly four years later. He said: "As pointed out in the above rulings, the urgency must be such as would not brook a delay of 30 days for hearing the objections. In cases where there is delay on the part of the Government in issuing the relevant notification, it will not be open to the Government to invoke the urgency clause as a matter of routine unless it is a case of real urgency as contemplated under the Act".
(3.) The learned Judge held that the exercise of the power under section 17(4) would be immune from review by courts only when the opinion is formed on the basis of the relevant factors but not otherwise. He thought that the proceedings of the District Social Welfare Officer and his communication to the Revenue Divisional Officer to take action under the emergency clause did not constitute relevant material on which the Government could form its opinion about the urgency of the acquisition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.