PASTAPURAPU BHADRAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1969-1-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 03,1969

PASTAPURAPU BHADRAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

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.
;


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