PASTAPURAPU BHADRAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is in application under Article 226 of the Constitution
for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to
Notification of the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 5-5-66 and
to quash the order in Memoj 317/663 Education dated 11-4-66
under the following circumstances :
(2.)This application is filed by six persons. Petitioners 1 and 2
are 'the original owners of tand bearing survey No. 2 of an extent of
Ac. 2-02 Guntasi Petitioners 3 to 6 purchased said land from)
petitioners 1 and 2 and they applied for a certificate under Section 50-B
of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
By a resolution dated 30-11-1962, the Panchayat Samithi, Malyal,
expressed its desire that S.No, 2 may be acqufreoj by the
Government to provide house-sites for Harizans residipg in the village of
Nachupalli, In view of this resolution, the District Social Welfare
Officer, Karimnagar in-his letter dated 2-3-55 submitted proposals
for the acquisition of Ac. 2-14 guntas out of survey No. 2 for
providing house-sites for Harlzans residing in the village of Nachupalli
(In view of this resolution, the District Social Welfare Officer,
Karimnagar in his letter dated 2-3-65 submitted proposals for the
acquisition of Ac 2-14 guntas out of S. No. 2 for providing house-
sites for Harizan families at Nachupalli village). Accordingly a
notification dated 11-4-66 was issued under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act stating inter-alia as follows :
"Under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the
Governor of Andhra Pradesh directs that in view of the
urgency of the case the provisions of Section 5-A of
the Act shall not apply to the acquisition of the arable
lands specified below".
Inspite of the fact that procedure under Section 5-A of the
Act was dispensed with, the petitioners nevertheless submitted
their objections to the Collector on 6-1-66 stating that they are
also Harizans, that they havejno other land except the land
proposed to be acquired and that instead of survey No. 2,
the adjoining land survey No. 8 may be acquired. On the basis of
these representations, the Collector called for a report from the
sub-Collector. On enquiry, the Sub-Collector submitted the report
dated 15-3-66 that the land in Survey No. 8 may be required instead
of the lands of the petitioners in survey No. 2. Bat this report w is
not submitted to the Government as the procedure under Section
5-A was not applicable by virtue of the notification. Thereafter,
the present writ petition was filed on 18-7-55 in which the further
proceedings were stayed.
(3.)The main point argued before me by Sri P.Babulu Redd y
the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the exercise of power
under section 17 (4) of the Act is not proper but only a colourable
exercise of the said power as it is not a case of urgency at all. Tne
other points raised in the petition have not been pressed before me.
On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government pleas
der that it is not open to the petitioner to question the action of '
the Government in treating the case as one of urgency and dispensing
with the hearing of objections contemplated by section 5-A of the
Act; In support of his contention the learned Government pleader
relied upon certain rulings to show that the question of urgency is-
not a justiciable one and that the court has no power at all to review
the action of the Government on the question of urgency. It is,
therefore, necessary to examine this question with reference to the
provisions of the Act and the various decisions dealing with the scope
of the said provisions.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.