RAJA KANDREGULA SRINIVASA JAGANNADHA RAO PANTULU BAHADDUR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA
LAWS(APH)-1955-7-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 20,1955

SREE RAJA KANDREGULA SRINIVASA JAGANNADHA RAO PANTULU BAHADDUR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMAMURTY V. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR [REFERRED TO]
SURYANARAYANA V. PROVINCE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SYED DILAWAR HUSSAIN VS. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MADRAS FIRST [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

JIBAN KRISHNA KARMAKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1987-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
RADHESHYAM VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2012-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SHIV LAHARI SHARMA [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-2-92] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chendra Reddy, J. - (1.)This is a petition, for the issue of a "writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution declaring that the notification No. 752 dated 25-8-1952 followed by notification No. 780 dated 24-9-1952 are ultra vires and illegal and for restraining the respondents from doing anything in pursuance of the same. It is filed in the following circumstances. The petitioner owns a plot of Ac. 25-00 of wet land in Valivartipadu village, a suburb of Gudivada. He was making efforts to dispose of this land by plotting it out as house sites for some years. In 1939 the Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality served a notice on him directing him to furnish plans in triplicate in case he wanted to sell the lands as house sites. Two years later, the municipality prepared a lay out plan for this area and seems to have required him to submit plans necessary for the purpose. As this does not seem to have been complied with for a long time, he was called, upon by a notice in July 1949 to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for contravening the terms of previous notice regarding the plans and also to stop the sale of the land till the plans were submitted and approved. Plans were accordingly submitted in January 1952. While the matter of approving of the plans and giving sanction to the petitioner for the lay out was pending consideration before the authorities concerned, the 2nd respondent co-operative society was formed for the purpose of building houses. This society approached the Government with a request to acquire the land in question for them. In compliance with this request, the Government issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 25-8-1952 but published on 24-9-1952. The declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was published in the gazette dated 8-10-1952. A year thereafter i.e. on 16-11-1953, the present petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 for the purposes mentioned above was filed.
(2.)The petition was originally grounded upon allegations of mala fides against the members of the Co-operative Society. In January 1955, a supplemental affidavit was filed by the petitioner setting out another ground of attack, against the acquisition proceedings namely, the infringement of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and also filed a petition for permission to amend the pleadings. Thus the validity of the proceedings is questioned on grounds of malafides and the contravention of the provision of law mentioned above.
(3.)I will first dispose of the case relating to the malafides. A reading of the petition shows that there is no basis for this charge. Assuming the allegations there to be correct, it is difficult to see how the petitioner would succeed in the petition. No want of bona fides is attributed to Government which is the acquiring authority. The motives of the persons who urge the Government to start proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are not quite relevant. We are only concerned with the conduct of the Government. The existence of malafides cannot be a matter of inference but must be established affirmatively. That apart, the only question for consideration is, whether it is required for a public purpose. When once declaration is made by the Government to that effect, that shall be conclusive evidence under Section s 6 (3) of the Act. This declaration cannot be challenged in a civil court. This is now well settled and it is unnecessary to refer to any of the decided cases.
;


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