CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD Vs. MELLA LAXMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal quesion that arises for consideration in this batch of Writ Appeals is, whether the consent given by the persons interested in the land, which is compulsorily acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) at the instance of and for the benefit of the Central Government Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Vijayawada, the appel- lant herein, disentitles them to the relief prayed for in the writ petitionsfiled by them. The writ Appeals 138 to 141 and 145 of 1982 are filed by the Co-operative Society and Writ Appeals 770 to 775 of 1982 are by the Collector, Krishna, who issued the impugned notification under Sec. 4 (1) and Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Our learned brother. Justice Gangadhara Rao, following the decision in Bheema- ppa v. State of A. P. (1) 1979 (2) A P L J 253, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, found that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay in publishing the substance of the notification issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act in the locality and quashed the acquisition proceedings, repelling the contention that the Consent given by the petitioners and the delay in filinig writ petitions did not disentitle .hem to the relijf prayed for. The few facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised, may be briefly stated :

(2.) The appellant, the Central Government Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. (for oliot Society') with a view to provide house sites for its members, who according to them are Central Government employees, attempted 10 purchase land in the outskirts of Vijayawada town situated in Patamata Lanka. Having regard to its large membership, the Society required about 35 to 40 acres of land. Society's negotiations with the owners for purchase of and not having fructified in respect of the entire extent required by it, the Society simultaneously moved for acquisition of land under the provisions of the Act. A notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was issued by the Government in G 0 Rt. No. 127 (H H & M A) Dept., dated 11-11-1975, proposing to acquire an extent of Ac. 36. 50 cts. of dry land belonging to several individuals for the alleged purpose of providing house sites to the members of the society. This no ification was published in the Gazette on 13-11-1975. The Collector, on 12-1-1976, reported to the Government that the membership of the Society- was too large; and that the lands proposed to be acquired belong to several individuals, most of whom own small extents, and .objected to such acquisition, and suggested that the acquisition proceedings be dropped. He sent up a further report to the same effect on 4-2-1976. The Government, however, did not agree to the same and communicated its views to the Collector through its letter dated 13-4-1976. Thereupon, notices under Sec. 5 (A) of the Act were issued. During the course of 5-A enquiry held between 16-8-78 to 18-8-78 by the Sub-Collector, some of the land-holders allegedly gave their consent in writing to the acquisition of their land. Since the parties are not ad-idem on the question whether the latter given by them constituted unequivocal consent, it is advisable to extract one such consent letter in extenso. It reads as follows: To The Sub Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada. Sir, Sub : Acquisition of Land of 0.50 under R S No. 11/10 in Patamata Village-Reg. Ref : Your notice served under Form 3 Dt. 31-7-1976. With reference to the notice cited I submit that as per Urban Ceiling Act 1976, it is stated that any Land acquisition and ownership transferred to the acquisitioner before .commencement of Acts is only valid or otherwise not. It is not known whether this acquisition has got special exemption from Government exempting the acquisition from Urban Ceiling Act, 1976. 2. If exemption is given, I do not have any objection to give my land provided a fair market value for any land in question is given to me.

(3.) I also authorise Sri G. Nageshwara Rao, my son-in-law to attend to the objection, if any, to be raised before you and also to all other connected work with regard to acquisition of iiand measuring 0-50 cents under R S No. 11/10". 3. As noticed by the learned single Judge, petitioners 16 and 17 in W P No. 859/81 (against which Writ Appeals 140 and 770 of 1982 are filed) admittedly did not give their consent. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents herein some others also did not give their consent and they are R-2 and R-3 in W A 138/83, R-1 in W A 13fl/9 , R-7, R-15 and R-17 in W A 140/82, R1 to R3 in W A 142/82, R-3 to R-5 in W A No. 145/82, R-1 to R-17 in W A 770/82 R-1 and R-2 in WA 771/82, the sole respondent in W A 772/82, R-1 to R-3 in W A 773/82, the sole appellant in W A No. 774/82 and R1 to R3 in W A No. 775/82. The appeals would have to be dismissed as against these Respondents in any event.