AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This case is having a chequered career and since 1980 the petitioners are in the Court and from the events that have taken place any man will remember the game of snake and ladder. Even now both the parties have not come to the Court with clean hands. They are playing hide and seek game. The petitioners as well as the official respondents have no belief in rule of law and they are trying to settle their scores by using the Courts.
Coming to the facts of the case I need not advert to the facts of this case. It is suffice to state that by order dated 31-8-1995 in Writ Petition Nos. 15250 of 1993 and 16686 of 1993 while upholding the draft notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 15-7-1993 struck down the emergency clause u/s 17(4) of the Act and directed the authorities to conduct the enquiry u/s 5(A) of the Act by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case in person. It is not in dispute that pursuant to this judgment on 5-10-1995 notices were sent u/s 5(A) of the Act informing the petitioners that the enquiry will be held on 16-11-1995 with regard to the objections raised till then and to be raised at the time of personal hearing against the proposed acquisition.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his clients have gone to the Mandal Revenue Officer''s Office and there the official respondents obtained their signatures on blank papers and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted. But the record shows that these notices were served on the petitioners on 14-10-1995. Among the petitioners only Mr. Rajendra has filed written objections on 5-9-1995 and as per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer he conducted an enquiry on 16-11-1995 at the Mandal Revenue Office, Tanuku and only Rajendra''s father appeared before him and reiterated the written objections filed by Rajendra earlier. After conducting the enquiry, the report was sent to the Collector rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner for the issuance of a declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act. Thereafter 6(1) declaration was issued and the same was published in the District Gazette on 17-4-1996. From the records it is available, it is seen that the notification was affixed to the notice board of the Taluq Office, Municipal Office, Sub-Registrar''s Office, Police Station and in the land. The notification was also published in the ''Visalandhra'' daily on 17-5-1996 and in the ''State Times'' daily, Eiuru on 18-5-1996. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer sat tight on the file almost for two years and for the first time he issued notification under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act on 18-4-1998 stating that the award enquiry will be held at his office on 5-5-1998.
Here I would like to go on record that from the date of publication of the notification in the gazette, this notice was issued one month after the prescribed period of limitation for passing the award. The notification was saved only because of its publication in the newspapers in May, 1996. This is how the Officers are exercising their powers under the Land Acquisition Act. Now it is seen that by virtue of the judgment of this Court dated 30-S-1995 Section 4(1) notification remained intact. With the result the land looser have to receive compensation as per the market value prevailing on the date of 4(1) notification. Even after four years the award enquiry in a manner known to law would not be conducted by these officers. With the result the petitioners have not only lost their valuable lands but they are forced to receive compensation in de-valued rupees and also to some extent with the loss of interest.
It is the case of the petitioners that on 5-5-1998 they had been to the office of the Land Acquisition Officer and he was not in the Office as he was attending Janma Bhumi Programme. Thereafter they did not receive any notice from the respondents and the present writ petition was filed on 13-5-1998. Had he waited for one more week, I am sure the entire proceedings would have gone and I do not know what made him to rush to this Court having waited for three long years after my judgment, more so without ascertaining the facts. As the two years period has not expired from the date of last publication of Section 6(1) declaration, I am left with no other option except negativing the contentions raised by the petitioners.
The first contention raised by the petitioners was that during 5(A) enquiry no opportunity of personal hearing was given to them as directed by this Court and as such the entire proceedings have to be set at naught. The learned Counsel himself admitted that his clients had been to the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer and their signatures were obtained on the reverse of the notice issued u/s (5)A of the Act. A look at this notice reveals that the Village Administrative Officer served notices on the petitioners on 14-10-1995 but not on 16-11-1995. If there is any truth in their assertion and as it is their case that these acquisition proceedings were initiated to serve the interest of one individual and are vitiated by mala fides and to help one individual, the entire administration is bent upon acting against the interest of the petitioners. Nothing would have prevented the petitioners from sending a representation by registered post to the Land Acquisition Officer who has obtained the signatures without conducting any enquiry, more so as directed by this Court. But that was not done. At the same time the report sent by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Collector categorically states that he conducted an enquiry at the Mandal Revenue Office, Tanuku on 16-11-1995 and except the father of Rajendra, no other petitioner attended. Hence absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve the report sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer way back on 21-12-1995. At the same time it is to be mentioned that the Land Acquisition Officer in his counter stated that in the office proceedings in Roc No.A,3120 of 1993 dated 21-12-1995 informing the petitioners that the objections raised against the acquisition were rejected. When I asked for the proof that the notices were received by the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the respondents admitted that the notices were sent only by ordinary post. With the result it is not known whether the so-called proceedings were sent to the petitioners or not and whether the petitioners have received the proceedings or not. As the officials are dealing with the valuable rights of the petitioners, they are expected to maintain the record to show that all is done in accordance with law. If that is the attitude of the Government Officials, they would have sent these notices by registered post with acknowledgment due than sending by ordinary post as contended by them. On that ground I cannot set the motion of the clock in reverse direction for the simple reason that they did not attend the inquiry having received the notice u/s 5(A) of the Act on 14-10-1995. At any rate Rajendra 1st petitioner filed written objection earlier and his father attended the inquiry on 16-11-1995.
Secondly, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that declaration u/s 6(1) was not published in the newspapers as required u/s 6(2) of the Act, But the record shows that the notification was published in ''State Times'' daily, Eluru and the ''Visalandhra'' daily as referred supra and also at various places in the Municipal Limits of Tanuku. Accordingly this contention also has to fail.
Thirdly it is the case of the petitioners that having received the notices under Sections 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act, they had been to the office of the Land Acquisition Officer on 5-5-1998 and the Land Acquisition Officer was not available in the office. But the record shows that the statements of petitioner Nos. 1 and 7 were recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5-5-1998 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 filed their written representations on that day. Of course in the representations that are said to have been filed by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on 5-5-1998, I do not find any endorsement or the seal of the Office evidencing the receipt of these representations on that day. But in the light of the statements of the petitioners 1 and 7 which were recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer, I have to presume either an enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer or these petitioners co-operated with the Land Acquisition Officer. I have to take this view because the counter filed by him is silent on this aspect though the petitioners have categorically stated that on 5-5-1998 the Land Acquisition Officer was not in the Office. Here I have to make a mention to justify the comments made by me at the threshold of the judgment. I find endorsements on the reverse of the notices issued under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act made by the Village Administrative Officer that Koduru Bapineedu, Thalluri Sridevi, Parimi Narasimha Apparao and Parimi Annapurna refused to receive the notices. If these endorsements arc made by the Village Administrative Officer without trying to serve notices on the petitioners, definitely the petitioners would have raised objections for the endorsements made by the Village Administrative Officer in black and white more so when some of the petitioners either gave statements before the Land Acquisition Officer or filed objections on 5-5-1998. But the learned Counsel for the petitioners could not place any material to show that these endorsements were made by the official machinery to deprive of their valuable right. Hence this contention also has to fail.
The last contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the award was not published within two years as required u/s 11(A) of the Act. I have already adverted to this fact, that had the petitioners waited for one more week, the result in this writ petition would have been otherwise. So I have to conclude the judgment by observing that I am forced to dismiss this writ petition because of the commissions and omissions made by the petitioners in protecting their rights over the petition schedule land in a manner known to law.
Before parting with the case I feel it my duty to refer to the laxity and carelessness of the official machinery in dealing with the rights of the citizens as well as public monies. This Court came across several cases that the powers of the Land Acquisition Officer are being conferred on ill-equipped people like Mandal Revenue Officers and the Revenue Divisional Officers who are not having knowledge of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by the Superior Courts for compliance of the provisions of the Act resulting in huge loss of public monies. On the other hand if the Government picks up men of integrity and give proper training before conferring powers of the Land Acquisition Officer under the Land Acquisition Act it may go a long way in saving public monies and also giving relief to the land-loosers at the earliest opportunity so that they can invest monies in some other useful activity to compensate the loss due to the acquisition of the immovable properties.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.