Mr. Venkatapathi Raju vs The State of Andhra and Another

Chandra Reddi, J.—The land acquisition proceedings Involved in this petition relates to a small extent of 25 cents of land covered by S. Nos. 2/1-B and blying in the village of Suryaraopeta of Kaki-nada Taluk/East; Godavari District. A notification was,4ssued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 that the two properties included in the two survey numbers referred i to the measuring in all Ac. -7-57 situate in that village were needed for a public purpose, lamely, providing house sites to the landless jurors, that the District Harijan Welfare Officer; Kakinada, was authorised to exercise powers u/s 14(2) of the Act and that the District Harijan Welfare Officer was appointed to perform the functions of the Collector. Subsequently, the notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued and published in the Fort St. George Gazette on, 9th May, 1950. These lands which originally belonged to one Peda Venkanna were purchased prior to the notification by a number of persons including the Petitioner who bought 23 cents of land in S. No. 2/1-B. As the effects of the Petitioner and the other vendees from the said Venkanna to per-'' suade the Government to drop the land acquisition proceedings proved futile, the Petitioner has approached this Court'' invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 ''of the Constitution. The notification is attacked;on several grounds, but the main contentions are firstly, that the Harijan Welfare: Officer appointed to perform the functions of the Collector u/s 5-A of the Act is not one who fulfils the requirements of the relevant G.O. which lays down that the officer appointed to perform the functions of a Collector should not be below the rank of a. Deputy Collector except a District Labour Officer, and, secondly, that no part of the compensation to be awarded for stitch property was paid by the Government vow W; P. No. 944 of 1953; D/-20-7-1955, (Andhra) (A)a declaration of intention made in that behalf5 before the issue of the notification u/s 6. of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to other grounds of attack against the notification as they were given up by the counsel for the Petitioner.

As regards the first point, it is stated in paragraph 8 (c) of the counter-affidavit as follows:

The appointment of-;the District Harijan Welfare Officer, Kakinada. to perform the functions pf the Collector u/s 5-A of the Act is legal and is in order. I beg to refer to G.O. Ms. No. 1306, dated 7th June, 1941.

This G.O. is not made a part of the record nor placed before me. However, I may proceed on the assumption that the Government appointed for the purpose of holding an enquiry, an officer who is not below the rank of a Deputy Collector, as it is not likely that they would have appointed one who does not answer to the description, contained in that G. O.

The contention in the Petitioner, with regard to, the Requirement of the, provision to Section 6, is met in the counter-affidavit of the Collector by sating that "there is no warrant'' for the assumption1 that the intention of the Government to contribute a portion of the cost of the . acquisition should be manifest ex facie in the notification. It is true that the intention need not appear on the face of the. Notification It is sufficient if the intention is made manifest prior to the publication of the declaration, but it is absolutely essential that the declaration of intention should precede the notification u/s 6. I have discussed a similar question at some length in Sreo Raja Kandreguta Srinivasa . Tatranr-atharao v. State of Andhra W; P. No. 944 of 1953; D/-20-7-1955, (Andhra) (A) and said, in agreement with the view of Rajagopalan, J., in Syed Dilawar Hussain Vs. Collector of Madras (Land Acquisition Officer, Madras) First Line Beach, Madras, , that although it is not necessary that the deposit of compensation should precede the notification u/s 6 or that the declaration need not ex facie show the intention of the Government as envisaged in the proviso, the declaration the intention of the Government to pay, a part of the compensation out of public funds should precede the notification u/s 6. It is not necessary to repeat the reasoning in. support of this conclusion. The Government have not stated anywhere that the intention was made manifest prior to the notification, nor even an attempt made in that behalf.

Mr. D. V. Redcli Pantulu appearing for Government Pleader submitted that, as there is an alternative remedy available to the Petitioner,viz., the filing of the suit, it is not necessary that the jurisdiction under Article 22G should be exercised. I do not think that I need give effect to this argument for the reason that that remedy by way of suit is not a very effective remedy in this case. That apart, the defect pointed out could easily be rectified by Government and there is absolutely no reason why I should drive the parties to a suit. Alternatively, it was urged that, as the Petitioner is guilty of laces in that he slept over the matter for four years, after the issue of the notification, the petition should be rejected in liming. Here again this argument is unacceptable to me. Though the notification u/s 6 was issued as far back as 1950, the enquiry contemplated by section 9 is still pending. Further, the- Petitioner along with a number of others, approached the Government with a request to drop the proceedings, as they were unnecessary for several reasons which are not quite pertinent and which, need not be repeated. It therefore cannot be said that the Petitioner is guilty of unnecessary and unduly long delay. The notification u/s 6 is quashed. This does not preclude the Government from complying with the provisions of the proviso to Section 6 and re-issuing the notification as early as possible.

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs which I fix at Rs. 50