- (1.) This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the notification dated 9-3-2002 and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of the land in accordance with the notification dated 7-12-1998 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or if necessary by issuing a fresh notification.
(2.) The facts that lead to the filing of the present writ petition are that the land of the petitioners to an extent of 2,423.09 sq. yards situate in survey numbers T.S. Nos 1/2 and 2/2 of Sultanbagh revenue village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District was sought to be acquired for the purpose of constructing a permanent drainage. The object for acquiring the land and construction of drain, is that the rain water nala (stream) has been passing through the said survey number and further there was pacca (permanent) masonry drainage constructed on the eastern and western sides and only the present land is kept open, as it belongs to the petitioners and that since said nala affects the inhabitants on both the sides of the subject land by breeding mosquitoes, it was identified as hazardous to the inhabitants of the locality. It appears that the people of the locality made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of A.P. and pursuant to the said representation, it is stated that the Hon'ble Chief Minister visited the spot and directed the respondents to take steps for acquisition of the land and construct permanent drainage. In the writ affidavit it is stated that consequent upon of the said instructions of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 7-12-1998 followed by a further notification under Section 5-A of the Act, dispensing with the enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act, thereby enabling the authorities to proceed with the notification under Section 6 of the Act and also to take possession of the land immediately under Section 17 (4) of the Act without even passing award. It also appears that the 2nd respondent through its Executive Engineer had requested the petitioners to permit the contractor to start the work in view of the urgency, through letter dated 2-5-1998. It is the averment of the petitioners that even the respondents 2 and 3 have taken possession of the land from the petitioners and commenced the work. While so, the people of the locality through a society, approached this Court by way of public interest litigation in W.P. No.12426/1999 seeking expeditious construction of the pucca drain. It appears that to the said writ petition, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the possession of the land had already been taken and the acquisition proceedings have already been commenced and the award money was also been deposited. It is stated in the writ affidavit that this Court taking into account the statements made in the counter-affidavit, disposed of the writ petition on 4-8-1999 holding that no further order need be passed. It appears that almost simultaneously the petitioners herein filed another writ petition in W.P. No.20481/1999 seeking expeditious acquisition of the land. A learned single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petition observed in the penultimate paragraph as under: "The attitude of the respondents and the State in trying to take the land of the petitioners without acquiring the same would be wholly antithetical to the concept of the rule of law. It is bad enough that for over 25 long years the respective rights and obligations of the petitioners or other persons who are similarly situated are not decided by the State under the Urban Land Ceiling Act,.......To tell the petitioners that on some future date the land of the petitioners is likely to be vested with the Government under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and therefore the petitioners need not be paid any compensation would be worse apart from being cruel."
(3.) However, the Government challenged the above judgment of the single Judge in W.A. No.1172/2000 and the Division Bench after elaborately considering all the issues, modified the order of the learned single Judge as under: (a) Since both the grounds pleaded for withdrawing the acquisition proceedings are found to be not tenable, the concerned authority that is the District Collector, Hyderabad as well as the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall decide within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as to whether they still intend to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings; (b) In case, it is decided that the proceedings be withdrawn and notification under Section 48 of the Act is issued, the Secretary, Municipal Administration, Government of A.P. shall take steps to identify the persons responsible for making the State to incur the expenditure towards publication of notifications, cost of material and other amounts payable to the contractor, quantify the amounts so incurred by the State and initiate proceedings for recovery of the same from the persons found responsible. This exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of notification issued under Section 48 of the Act, if issued. (c) In case, it is decided to proceed with the acquisition, the appellant shall proceed with the award enquiry and complete the same within three months from the date of decision as directed in clause (a).;