KONA VENKANNA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KAKINADA EAST DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks writ of Mandamus to declare the Notification dated 25-2-2004 in Ref. G2/261/2004 issued by first respondent No. 1-District Collector proposing to acquire the land of the respondent No.3 - Temple in an extent ot Ac. 2-45 Centrs in survey No. 76/1 of Kumarapriyam Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the instructions by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 363, Revenue (Endts. II) Department, dated 26-4-1999.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be landless poor and a cultivating tenant of respondent No.3 in an extent of Ac.2-45 cents in Sy.No. 76/1, Kumarapriyam village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, for more than three decades, and that he has a lease subsisting, which is valid upto 2005, and that he is paying the rents regularly. He is raising crops in the land, and presently there is standing crop. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4-Sarpanch, who is inimical to him, got passed a resolution, and on the basis of the said resolution, respondent No.1 issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for acquisition of the land belonging to respondent No.3, which is under his cultivation, for providing house sites to weaker sections. According to the petitioner and no enquiry whatsoever wsa conducted by respondent No.1 before issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Though the land under his cultivation is a wet land, the Draft Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act mentions it to be a dry land. Respondent No.4 had misled respondent No.1 on this aspect. Though there is no urgency, respondent No.1 invoking the urgency clause under Sec. 17 of the Act, dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The land is not suitable for providing house sites for it is located in the midst of other agricultural lands and one kilometre away from the village. It is stated that the petitioner being a small farmer is entitled to the benefits under the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Endowments Act') and he should be given priority over the purchase of the land under his cultivations if respondent No.3 intends to sell or alienate. The acquisition of land in question, according to the petitioner, runs contrary to the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 363, Revenue (Endts-II) Department, dated 26-4-1999. It is stated that though there are other government lands available in the village, respondent No.1 at the instance of respondent No.4, issued the impugned Notification, seeking to acquire the land belonging to respondent No.3, which is under cultivation of the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Temple.