AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter has been placed before the Division Bench in view of the order of reference dated 17th June, 1987 passed by the learned single Judge.
Before the learned single Judge, it was submitted that the declaration issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') which is required to be published in the newspaper, the gazette and on the spot and those publications were required to be done simultaneously, on the true interpretation of Section 6(2) of the Act.
For appreciating the contentions raised, it is necessary to set out a few facts. For stating the facts, we take up the facts in W.P. No. 7599 of 1986:
The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac. 1-21 cents of land in S.Nos. 1480/2, 1480/2, 1480/4 and 1484/2 of Bheemunipatnam . Their case was that earlier, out of this land, they had given away Ac.0-41 cents of land on 25-2-1984 for laying a road and this land was given away on the understanding that the rest of the land will be left with the petitioners. Section 4(1) notification was issued in the Gazette on 1-6-1984 and the substance thereof was published in the locality on 26-6-1984. The notice u/s 5-A of the Act dated 26-6-1984 was received by the petitioner on 13-7-1984. The petitioner filed objections on 23-7-1984. Thereafter a date was fixed for inquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, i.e., 4-8-84. Therefore Section 6 declaration was published on 12-5-1986 and in the two newspapers it was published on 12-5-1986 and in the two newspapers it was published on 18-5-1986 and 21 -5-1986. It was published in the locality on 23-5-1986.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the declaration u/s 6 should not only be published in the official gazette but it should also be published in the two daily newspapers as well as in the locality on the same day. Section 6(2) of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, read as follows:
"Every declaration shall be published in the official gazette, and in two daily newspapers, circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice being hereafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration) and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situated, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan maybe inspected."
It may be noticed that sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act itself specifies the last of the dates of the publication and the giving of such public notice being referred to therein as the date of publication of the declaration. The intention of sub-section (2) of S. 6 was that the declaration shall be published in the gazette and also in two daily newspapers as well as in the locality. But there is no limitation in the sub-section that the declaration of publication in the gazette as well as in the two daily newspapers as also in the locality should be made simultaneously. Therefore, we find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The next submission made by Sri S. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 7599/86, is that no proper enquiry was conducted u/s 5-A of the Act. In the writ petition it was averred that the petitioner received a notice on 13-7-1984, that thereupon he filed objections and that a copy thereof filed with the material papers may be read as part of the affidavit. It was further averred that in the said reply dated 23-7-1984, the petitioner pointed out that he alone is entitled to S.No. 1480 part and 1484 part, and nobody else has any right, title to or interest in the said property and the names of the other persons should be deleted from the proceedings. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had given a letter of consent to the Executive Engineer, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, to lay a 60'' wide road in the land subject to the condition that the other land should not be acquired. It was also averred in the writ petition that no notice has been issued to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner submitted his objections on 23-7-1984, but he has not been given an opportunity to represent his case and that he has not been heard at all on 4-8-84 or on any subsequent date. In the counter-affidavit in paragraph 6 while replying to the averments mentioned above, it was stated that the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry u/s 5-A was not conducted and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry is not correct. It was stated that, in fact, notice in Form No. 3 u/s 5-A calling for objections was issued on 26-6-1984 fixing the date of enquiry as 4-8-1984 at the Taluk Office, Bheemunipatnam, and that the enquiry u/s 5-A was conducted on 4-8-1984. The Manager of the petitioner-company filed objections. Those objections were duly considered and overruled as it was found that there was no substance.
It may be noticed that Rules have been framed by the Government of A.P. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant Rules i.e., Rules 1 and 3, read as follows:
"Rule (1): Immediately after the publication of the notification u/s 4(1), the Collector shall issue a notice stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed, as the case may be, for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to lodge before the Collector within thirty days after the issue of the notification a statement in writing of their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. This notice should be published at convenient places in the said locality, and copies thereof fixed up in the office of the Collector, the Tahsildar and in the nearest police station.
Rule (3) (a) If a statement of objections is filed by a person who is not interested in the land which shall be summarily rejected;
(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land and within the time prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 5-A, the Collector shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector as well as to the department or company requiring the land, where such department is not the revenue department. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company. The department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Collector a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry;
(c) on the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by the Collector, the Collector shall hear the objector or his pleader and the representative, if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced in support of the objections."
It is clear from the provisions of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act that no usual notices are required to be sent to the interested persons calling upon them to file objections. It is clear that the substance of the notification u/s 4(1) should be published in the locality. After publication, the Collector shall issue a notice stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to lodge before him within thirty days a statement in writing of the objections to the proposed acquisition. No usual notices are contemplated. The notices in the present case did require the petitioner to file their objections within thirty days. But it appears from the counter-affidavit that objections were filed on behalf of the petitioner only on 4-8-1984 i.e., the date fixed for enquiry. The declaration issued u/s 6.was that the land was needed for a public purpose, viz., that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for 1VDP Scheme by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. There was no objection petition filed on 4-8-1984 that the land in question had not so far been acquired for the aforesaid scheme. What was stated was that the land was needed for the petitioner''s workmen. It was also submitted that they were given to understand that the rest of the land will not be acquired. But no such understanding was filed along with the objections. The Manager of the petitioner-Company appeared before the competent authority, but he did not adduce any evidence. Nor any document was produced in that behalf. In that situation, we are of the view that the enquiry envisaged u/s 5-A has been complied with. It was for the petitioner either to make a request for granting time for giving evidence before the date fixed for enquiry or for producing the document in that behalf to substantiate the objections required to be filed.
Apart from filing the objections on the date of the enquiry, nothing has been done by the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the enquiry conducted u/s 5-A was not in any way vitiated; nor can it be said that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to appear in the enquiry and particiate therein. In fact, notice u/s 5-A was issued on 28-6-1984 fixing the date of enquiry as 4-8-1984. Enquiry was conducted on 4-8-1984 at Bheemunipatnam. The Manager of the petitioner-company filed an objection petition. The objections were duly considered and overruled and it was found that there was no substance.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 15493/86 submits that Section 6(2) declaration was not published in the locality as contemplated by Section 6(2), This fact was denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that Section 6 declaration was duly published in the locality as required by law. In view of this, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, both the writ petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 250/- in each.
Petition dismissed.