G LAXMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GOVERNMENT OF A.P., REP
Click here to view full judgement.
Chief Justice, J. -
(1.)The Appellant, who is the original writ petitioner, is aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dismissing her writ petition. The few relevant facts leading to this appeal are required to be noted at the outset to appreciate the grievance of (he appellant.
(2.)The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh on 13th September, 1979. The notification sought to acquire a total extent of Ac.8.02 cents comprised in S.Nos-133/lA, 135/1A, 136 and 137/1 of Manchala village, Mantralayam Mandal, Kurnool District, for the purpose of construction of bus stand by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), which is the second respondent herein. Possession of the land was taken on 6th November, 1979 and award was passed on 31st August, 1980 determining the compensation. In the meantime, the third respondent herein filed Writ Petition No. 2704 of 1980 in respect of one acre of land in S.No. 136. Out of Ac.2.95 cents in S.No.136, which originally belonged to one Mallaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, the third respondent purchased one acre for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. He filed the said writ petition contending that the acquisition is invalid, and sought forquashing of the notification under Section 4(l)of the Act. Now it must be stated at this stage that earlier the said third respondent had appeared before the Land Acquisition Authority and submitted that he had no objection to the land being acquired and his dispute was regarding quantum of compensation to be awarded to him for acquisition of his one acre of land in S.No. 136. It is not in dispute between the parties that this land is a pocket land situated in the midst of other land, which is sought to be acquired for the purpose of bus stand. When the Corporation found that a dispute with respect to this pocket land of one acre was taken to the High Court and was on the anvil, an arrangement of compromise was arrived at between the Corporation on the one hand and the third respondent on the other, as a result of which an agreement was entered into on 29th September, 1984 in the following terms:
"1. The second party agrees to withdraw the writpetition No. 2704 of 1980 filed by him before the A.P. High Court, Hyderabad and also other proceedings filed by him in respect of one acre of land belonging to him in S.No. 136. 2. The second party shall request the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award in respect of one acre in S.No.136/2 as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer shall be final and accepted by the second party. 3. The second party shall not seek enhancement of compensation higher than the compensation by Land Acquisition Officer in his award in respect of one acre in Sy.No. 136/2, vide clause 2 supra. 4. The first party agrees to sell the second party an area of one acre with measurements of 964/5' x 450' on southern side in S.No. 113 / 1 A as fully described in Schedule-I and as shown in Schedule-II at the rate of Rs.5,750/- per acre. 5. The second party shall pay the sale consideration by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of the first party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni in respect of the land bearing S.No. 136/2. 6. The first party shall deliver to the second party the possession of the land within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sale consideration and shall also execute a sale deed within 15 days from the date of handing over the possession of the schedule land. 7. The expenses of registration and stamp duty shall be borne by the second party. 8. The second party agrees to pay to the first party any further sum received from the Land Acquisition Officer granted in respect of one acre of land."
(3.)Pursuant to the said agreement, the third respondent was given one acre from the southerr side of S.No. 133 / 1 A on his paying Rs. 5,750/- per acre, and in bargain the third respondent gave up his contention regarding acquisition of his one acre of land in S.No. 136;he also agreed to forego the excess compensation, which may be awarded for the acquisition of his land in S.No.136. It is not in dispute that this agreement has been acted upon. The third respondent withdrew his writ petition; award was passed for acquiring his one acre of land in S.No.136 and the third respondent was allotted one acre of land out of S.No,133/lA. It is thereafter that the present writ petitioner, who is the legal representative of the deceased tenant of the land, which was sought to be acquired outof S.No.133/lA, filed the writ petition contend ing that the transfer of one acre of land acquired out of S.No. l33 / lA by the Corporation in favour of the third respondent was patently illegal and contrary to Section 44-A of the Actread with Rule 8 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')- It was submitted that when a land is acquired for a public purpose, it had to be strictly utilised for such purpose only, as the land acquisition proceedings represent exercise of power of eminent domain by the State. They cannot be bartered away, in order to gain profit, to persons like the third respondent, it was contended that part VII of the Land Acquisition Act was required to be followed strictly, as the acquisition was for the Corporation, which is a Company and as Section 44-A of the Act is part of Part VII, it had to be strictly followed. That has not been done. Hence it may be declared that the transfer of one acre of land out of the acquired land in S.No. 133 / 1 A in favour of the third respondent by the Corporation is null and void and inoperative in law.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.