VELAGAPUDI KANAKA DURGA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KRISHNA DISTRICT CHILAKPADUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has to be answered in this writ petition is whether there should be fifteen clear days notice for holding an enquiry under Section 11 after issuing a notice or notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of Ac. 3-06 cents of land in Survey Number 80-3 in Prasadampady Village, Vijayawada taluk in Krishna District. She alleges that until she was given the notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of 19-8-968, she was not aware of any acquisition proceedings in respect of this land of Ac. 3-06 cents It however transpires and the same is evident from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent that Section 4 (1) notification and also the one under Section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A were published in the official Gazette dated 29-9-1966. It was stated that the land was acquires urgently for providing houses to the houseless poor Harijans and consequently the urgency provisions of the Act were invoked. It is not disputed that the declaration under Section 6 followed afterwards. It is commences that a single notice under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act dated 13/08/1968 fixing the date of enquiry to 2/09/1968 was received by the petitioner only on 19-8-1968. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the enquiry was not held on 2-9-1968 but was conducted on 14-10-1968 and the award was passed on 24-10-68.

(3.) In view of these facts, Shri Bhima Raju appearing for the petitioner urges subsequent to and in pursuance of Section 9 (3) and Section 10 notices are illegal. for the reason that the petitioner was not given fifteen clear days notice of the enquiry to be held. It is to be noted that though the notice was dispatched on 13-8-1968 fixing the date of enquiry to 2-9-1968, it was actually received by the petitioner on 19-8-1968 and when that is so, there was only thirteen clear days notice and not fifteen clear days notice from the date of service. Shri Bhima Raju contends that the notice given under sub-section (3) of Section should also satisfy the requirements of the notice under sub-section (1) as laid down by sub-section (2), In so far as a notice contemplated by sub-section (1) is concerned, sub-sec. (2) lays down that such notice shall fix the time for appearance of the claimants which is not earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice, Then sub-section (3), which provides for service of individual notices on the occupiers of such land in addition to the publication of the notice under Section 9 (1), says that the said notice should be to the same effect as the notice under sub-section (1). The argument of the learned counsels that is clear from the words "to the same effect" occurring in sub-section (3) that fifteen days time should be given even for a notice under sub-section (3).