Madala Subba Rao and Others vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—These two writ petitions are filed feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not holding the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act'') and publishing the declaration u/s 6 of the Act. Certain lands belonging to the petitioners were notified for acquisition under notification, dated 9.3.2011, issued u/s 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of Gundlakamma Reservoir Project. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that even though the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act has not dispensed with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, no such enquiry was held and declaration u/s 6 of the Act was however published on 4.5.2011.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, while conceding that the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act has not dispensed with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, it was however pleaded that even though the ryots of Duddukuru Village have filed a representation before the District Collector, Ongole, on 13.4.2011, they have not filed specific objections for holding an enquiry and hence, the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act is not held.

In my opinion, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be sustained. Even though the Act does not envisage a separate notice besides the publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, the A.P. Government has framed the Rules titled "the A.P. Land Acquisition (State Level Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1998". Rule 1 thereof specifically provided for issuance of notice after publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act inviting objections from the land owners or the persons interested within 30 days of issuance of such notice. The rules also prescribe a specific form in Form No. 3 in which such notice has to be sent. Having framed the rules, it is imperative for the respondents to issue notice. Admittedly, no notice has been issued by the respondents. Therefore, they cannot blame the petitioners for not filing their specific objections. As the procedure followed by the respondents is in violation of the procedure prescribed, publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act without holding enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act cannot be sustained in law.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Irrigation Department has changed the alignment. The petitioners are entitled to raise their objections on this aspect also. If such objections are raised, respondent No. 3 shall call for a report from the Irrigation Department and after supplying the copies of such report to the petitioners, he shall consider the said objection along with all other legally sustainable objections that may be raised by the petitioners.

In the light of the above, the declaration, dated 4.5.2011, issued u/s 6 of the Act is set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to issue notices to the petitioners inviting the objections and hold enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act before seeking to proceed further with the proposed acquisition.

Subject to the above directions, the writ petitions are allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, order, dated 18.5.2011, passed in WPMP No. 17271 of 2011 stands vacated and WPMP No. 17271 of 2011 and WVMP Nos. 2492 of 2011 and 4240 of 2012 are disposed of and also order, dated 4.8.2011, passed in WPMP No. 26900 of 2011 stands vacated and WPMP No. 26900 of 2011 and WVMP Nos. 4011 of 2011 and 4198 of 2012 are disposed of.