AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside declaration, dated 22.07.2011, issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act'') as unconstitutional. The petitioner is running a group of educational institutions over an extent of Acs.5-00 of land in Survey Nos. 482/1, 483 and 484 of Peddasettipalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. Respondent No. 3 issued notification u/s 4(1) of the Act on 24.06.2010, whereunder an extent of Acs.0-81 cents of land in Survey Nos. 483/2 and 484/2 belonging to the petitioner is notified for the purpose of road widening. In pursuance of a notice issued u/s 5-A of the Act, an enquiry was held. Following the said enquiry, an order rejecting the petitioner''s objections was passed. Thereafter, the impugned declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made and published. Feeling aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4, wherein he has sought to support the impugned acquisition proceedings.
At the hearing, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior viz., (1) that the declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made and published beyond one year of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and (2) that the order passed u/s 5-A of the Act was served on the petitioner after publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act.
In order to substantiate his first submission, learned senior counsel has pointed out that as per the version of the respondents, the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality on 29.07.2010, which is reckoned as the last of the publications from the date on which the period of one year envisaged under first proviso to Section 6 of the Act will commence and that suspicious circumstances exist to show that such local publication has not been made on 29.07.2010.
In support of this submission, learned senior counsel has drawn this Court''s attention to letter in Ref. No. E/921/2009, dated 04.08.2010, of respondent No. 3 addressed to the Tahsildar, Proddatur, wherein he has enclosed notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act along with gazette copies for conducting enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act and its publication. Learned senior counsel contended that it is not possible to believe that even before respondent No. 3 has sent the Prodattur, would have got the same published in the locality on 29.07.2010.
As the above submission of the learned senior counsel appeared somewhat convincing, this Court has directed the Tahsildar, Proddatur, who was in the office at the relevant time, to file his personal affidavit besides producing the relevant record. Accordingly, affidavit, dated 24.01.2013, sworn to by one Sri G. Bhaskar Reddy, who worked as Tahsildar, Proddatur, from 18.06.2009 to 20.04.2011, has been filed. In his affidavit, the Tahsildar stated that he has received communication vide Ref. No. E/921/2009, dated 17.07.2010, from respondent No. 3 on 18.07.2010, wherein he was directed by respondent No. 3 to publish the gazette copy of draft notification in the notice Boards of the Panchayat Office and the Tahsildar''s Office and in public places of Peddasettipalli Village and that accordingly, on 22.07.2010, he has directed the Village Revenue Officer, Peddasettipalli Mandal, to cause publication of the draft notification and also its proclamation through beat of tom-tom and affixture of the gazette copy in the Gram Panchayat Office. The Tahsildar further stated that the Village Revenue Officer, Peddasettipalli Village, after duly complying with the said directions, submitted compliance report, dated 29.07.2010, and (sic) and certificates to respondent No. 3. In support of his affidavit, the Tahsildar has filed relevant copies of the proceedings referred to in his affidavit as noted above.
On a perusal of the record produced by learned Special Government Pleader, learned senior counsel for the petitioner raised a doubt that the file does not contain any note orders for publication of gazette notification and that therefore, the record appears to be fabricated. Learned senior counsel, therefore, requested that respondent No. 3 and the Tahsildar may be directed to produce the Inward and Despatch Registers.
Today, Sri Srikanth Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, placed before the Court the Despatch Register relating to the year 2010 maintained by the Office of respondent No. 3. Page No. 1 of the said register contains the particulars relating to despatch of proceedings in Ref. No. E/921/2009, dated 17.07.2010, to the Tahsildar, Proddatur, through one C. Sreenivasulu, Attender, who has signed on 18.07.2010, acknowledging the cover relating to the said proceedings. Learned Special Government Pleader while stating that no Inward Register is maintained either by respondent No. 3 or by the Tahsildar, Proddatur, submitted that as and when the documents are received, the officers concerned will put the seal (sic). He has placed before the Court the record maintained by the Office of the Tahsildar, Proddatur, a perusal of which would show that at page No. 87, the above-mentioned letter, dated 17.07.2010, sent by the Office of respondent No. 3 was received by the office of the Tahsildar, Proddatur. A round seal of the Tahsildar''s Office containing "18.07.2010" as the date has been put on the document along with an initial in green ink.
A perusal of the Despatch register (Outward/Local) maintained by the Tahsildar''s Office, Proddatur, would show that certain documents were sent through Ref. No. A/501/2010, dated 29.07.2010. The register mentioned two documents as enclosures to the said reference viz., gazette publication and Panchayat Secretary publication report. Page No. 338 of the file of the Office of respondent No. 3, produced by the Special Government Pleader, shows that the Tahsildar''s communication, vide Ref. No. A/501/2010, dated 29.07.2010, was received by the Office of respondent No. 3 on 29.07.2010 with an initial and date written thereunder as "29/7". Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the local publication of gazette notification was got made by the Tahsildar, Proddatur, in pursuance of letter, dated 17.07.2010, of respondent No. 3 and not on the letter, dated 04.08.2010, of respondent No. 3 which enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act even though reference of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act has also been made in the said letter.
On a careful scrutiny of the record as discussed above, I am fully convinced about its authenticity and I do not find force in the submissions of the learned senior counsel that publication of substance of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act would not have been made on 29.07.2010. As rightly pointed out by learned Special Government Pleader, while the purpose of letter, dated 17.07.2010, was to direct the Tahsildar to cause local publication of the gazette notification, the purpose of letter, dated 04.08.2010, was for taking appropriate steps for holding an enquiry u/s 5-Aof the Act. By mere reference of publication of gazette notification in letter, dated 04.08.2010, of respondent No. 3, the said letter cannot be understood to have been intended only for publication of gazette notification in the locality. But for the letter, dated 17.07.2010, addressed by respondent No. 3 such an interpretation of letter, dated 04.08.2010, would have been possible. However, the respondents were able to prove that even before respondent No. 3 addressed letter, dated 04.08.2010, to the Tahsildar, Proddatur, publication of the gazette notification in the locality was made on 29.07.2010 in pursuance of letter, dated 17.07.2010, of respondent No. 3 addressed to the Tahsildar, Proddatur.
In the light of the above findings, I am of the opinion that the respondents were able to prove that the publication of gazette notification was made in the locality on 29.07.2010, which for the purpose of computing the limitation for publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act shall be treated as the date of the publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. Admittedly, declaration u/s 6 of the Act was published in the district gazette on 23.07.2011, which is within one year from the date of the publication of the gazette notification. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner on this aspect.
As regards the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that order, dated 19.07.2011, passed u/s 5-A of the Act was communicated to the petitioner after gazette publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act and therefore, declaration u/s 6 of the Act shall be invalidated, I do not find any force therein.
The judgment of this Court in Ledella Ravichandar V. Satyam Computer Services Limited1 relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner does not support his case as in the said case, there was no communication of the order passed u/s 5-A of the Act, thereby disabling the petitioner therein from questioning the said order. But, in the instant case, the order was communicated albiet after publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act. The right of the petitioner to question the acquisition proceedings including rejection of his objections was in no way affected by communication of the order passed u/s 5-A of the Act after gazette publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act.
Lastly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chief Engineer (R&B), CRN and Managing Director of APRDC, Hyderabad, addressed letter to the Executive Engineer (R&B), APRDC Division, Kadapa, to inspect the site, hold discussions with the revenue authorities and land owners and furnish a detailed report along with alternative proposals, if feasible, with financial implications and that no further action has been taken in this regard to explore the possibility of laying the road through alternative lands. Learned Special Government Pleader placed before the Court order, dated 31.12.2012, addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer, wherein after a detailed examination of the alternative proposals, he has opined that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.
For all the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed.