A P INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORP Vs. CH VIJAYA LAKSHMI
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-41
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 04,1992

ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
CHALASANI VIJAYA LAKSHMI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUBBA RAO VS. THE COLLECTOR EAST GODAVARI [REFERRED TO]
SREENIVASA SHENOY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
BIHTA CO OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND CANE MARKETING UNION LIMITED VS. BANK OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL RATTANLAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BAI MALIMABU VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
KALIYAPPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
S BAVAJAN SAHIB VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L A VS. M J SWAMY [LAWS(APH)-1993-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
MALLADI KRISHNA MOHAN VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
K GANAPATHI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(APH)-2005-4-86] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Justice M.N.Rao, J. - (1.)Commonality of law and facts are the reasons mat induce us to dispose of all these matters by this common judgment. Writ Appeal No. 1033 of 1988 was filed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, (for short 'the APIIC')/ a State Government concern, against tine judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.1700 of 1987 allowing the writ petition filed by twenty-six land-owners claiming themselves to be small farmers challenging the legality of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 16-12-1985 in G.O.Rt.No.1281 published in the Gazette on 3-1-1986 proposing to acquire Acs.148-34 of land situate in P-enamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, for the purpose of extension of the Auto Nagar, near Vijayawada. The legality of the 4(1) notification was challenged on grounds inter alia that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality, the draft declaration under Section 6 was not issued within one year from the date of the notification issued under Section 4(1), the Land Acquisition Officer who conducted the enquiry under Section 5-A had not passed a reasoned order, the lands belonging to small farmers could not be acquired and the very acquisition itself was not bonafide. No counter was filed by the State Government when the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Judge. Therefore, treating one of the grounds, namely, non-publication of the substance of the notification in the locality under Section 4(1) as uncontroverted, the writ petition was allowed and the Section 4(1) notification was quashed.
(2.)The APIIC, which was the beneficiary under the acquisition proceedings as the land proposed to be acquired was to be entrusted to it for the purpose of allotment to individual members of the Automobile Technicians' Association, Vijayawada, filed Writ Appeal No.1033 of 1988 after obtaining leave of the Court as it was not a party to the writ proceedings. A counter-affidavit was filed at the stage of the writ appeal denying the pleas taken in the writ petition. A specific plea was taken in the counter-affidavit that on 3-2-1986 the notification issued under Section 4(1) was published in the newspapers and the substance of the same was also published in the locality. At the time of the hearing the record was produced before us by Shri R. Subba Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, which substantiates the assertion as regards the publication of the notification in the locality under Section 4(1) within the prescribed period of forty days. In the normal course, the writ appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted to a learned single judge for disposal on merits in accordance with law but in the particular circumstances we have not done so: Shri V.V.S. Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, has submitted that the conclusion reached by the learned single judge as to the invalidity of the notification issued under Section 4(1) can also be supported on other grounds which he seeks to urge and, therefore, no remand is necessary. Other writ petitions challenging the legality of the same notification also are listed for disposal before us along with the writ appeal. We are, therefore, inclined to consider the contentions raised by both sides as to the legality of the 4(1) notification.
(3.)Out of the total extent of Acs.148-34 cents, an extent of Acs.39-18 cents was withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings at the request of the Requisitioning Department and this was specifically mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award. Five writ petitions were filed in this Court-Writ Petition Nos.1700 of 1987,2370,3073 and 4665 of 1988 and 1553 of 1989 - by the land owners affected by the notification challenging the legality of the acquisition proceedings. The total extent of the land covered by these five writ petitions is Acs.94-31 cents. Interim orders were issued by this Court in these five writ petitions directing the Land Acquisition Officer not to dispossess the petitioners therein if they were not already dispossessed. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, passed the award on 6-3-1989 only in respect of Acs.14-85 cents of land. Till now no award has been passed in respect of the lands covered by these writ petitions.
;


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