- (1.) : The Brief Facts : Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 (1) and a simultaneous declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act), dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A invoking Section 17 (4), 4.03 acres of land belonging to the appellant-petitioner was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, to wit, for providing house-sites for the weaker sections, like the Kuruvas. The appellant's writ was one for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the notincations under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 relating to the acquisition of the said 4.03 acres as illegal and unconstitutional, and for other incidental reliefs. The learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and directing the first respondent, the District Collector to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act after giving due notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the beneficiaries, who got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. The contention that the proceedings were bad on account of the substance of the notification not having been published according to law was found against the writ petitioner, and was rejected by the learned single Judge. The two other contentions : (1) that an extent of 15 acres had already been acquired earlier for the very same purpose; and, therefore, the acquisition under the notification and declaration challenged in the writ petition was unnecessary; and (2) that the proceedings were bad for the Land Acquisition Officer not having obtained the prior approval of the State Governn ent, were left open without being decided on merits, with liberty for the writ petitioner to raise them before the Land Acquisition Officer in the course of Section 6-A enquiry directed to be held.
(2.) The question of law raised in the appeals. In the memorandum of appeal, the appellant-petitioner is seen to have raised a ground that the points left open to be raised before the Land Acquisition Officer sought to have been decided by the learned single Judge himself. What, however, was pressed and argued at considerable length before us was ground No. 15, which was not taken either before the Land Acquisition Officer or even in the writ petition, which reads as follows: "The learned Judge ought to have seen that the land acquisition proceedings have to be quashed on the ground that the list of intended allottees of house-sites has not been given as part of Section 4 (1) notification or Section 6 declaration as decided by this Honourable Court." The inspiration for raising this contention for the first time in appeal, which was filed on 10-6-1986, appears to have been derived from the observations in Datla Sreeramachandra Raju's case,1986 (1) APLJ 2501986 (1) ALT 409 which was decided by a learned single Judge of this Court on 16-1-1986. Objection to the appellant-petitioner 1. urging this ground for the first time in appeal was taken by the respondents. We have, however, heard the counsel for the appellant on this point, it being the only point seriously urged before us during the course of the hearing of the appeal; and it was submitted that it was purely a question of law, in as much as the failure to give the list of intended allottees of house-sites as part of Section 4 (1) notification or Section 6 declaration according to the appellant, vitiated the whole proceedings as it was opposed to the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 472, Revenue, dated 22nd February, 1938, issued. by the Madras Government fthe Madras G.O. for brevity), which the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to follow. The Madras G.O. reads as; follows : "When land is required for providing house sites for members of j the scheduled castes or other labouring classes or of a co-operative society, the names of the members to whom it is intended to assign the land when acquired should be given in the notice issued under Sections 4 (1) and 5-A together with the extents proposed to be given to each. Information as to whether this instruction has been complied with should be furnished when submitting the draft declaration under Section 6. In submitting proposals for acquisition Collectors should report whether the possibility of any further land being required in the near future for expansion or development of the project or scheme in question has been considered and whether the proposals made to provide for such contingencies. This report is not necessary in cases of acquisition for the Union Government Railways."
(3.) The assumption of the appellant in Ground No. 15 that the list of intended allottees of house-sites had to be given as part of Section 6 declaration in accordance with the decision of this Court does not appear to be correct. A careful reading of the Madras G.O. on which the decision of this Court, rests would reveal that it does not, in terms, require a list of intended allottees of house-sites to be given as part of Section 6 declaration. What the Madras G.O. states is; "the names of the members to whom it is intended to assign the land when acquired should be given in the notice issued under Sections 4 (1) and 5-A together with the extents proposed to be given to each." The further requirement is that the information as to whether the above instructions had been complied with should be furnished when submitting the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act, not that a a list of intended allottees of the house-sites should be given as part thereof.;