AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The ten petitioners in this case are the owners of the land in an extent of Ac-1-82 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/2 to 133/5 and 132/6 Yanada Village, Visakhapalnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners 1 and 2 have jointly purchased an extent of Ac. 1-06 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/6 and 133/3 from the petitioners 4 and 5 under a registered document No. 1212, dated 31-1-1985 after paying considerable amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Petitioner No. 3 is the owner of an extent of Ac.0-76 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/4, 133/5 and 132/6 of the same village. Before purchasing the land, petitioners vendees had obtained permission from the Urban Ceiling authorities vide C.C. No. 7080/82 dated 10-51982. The lands are situate outside Visakhapatnam Municipal limits and do not attract the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. All the petitioners herein pray for issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award No. 35/86 dated 24-12-1987 passed by the 3rd respondent herein, in so far as acquisition of petitioners'' land to an extent of Ac. 1-82 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/2 to 133/5 and 132/6 of Yanada village, Visakhapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to quash the same and to direct the respondents not to acquire the petitioners'' land.
In a matter like this it may be necessary to concentrate upon a few relevant dates which have led to the acquisition proceedings.
Date of 4(1) notification
26-10-1984
Publication of Section 4(1) notification in the locality
9-11-984
Date of paper publication as required u/S. 4(1) of the Act.
22-2-1985.
Dale of initiation under Sec. 5-A Enquiry.
30-10-1984
Dale of notification u/S 6 of(he Act.
4- 12-1985.
Date of newspaper publication of the declaration u/S 6 of the Act
26-12-1985
Publication of the declaration in the locality.
24-1-1986
Date of passing of the Award.
24-12-1987.
The above said dates are not disputed between the parties and they are accepted by all concerned.
Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions; (1) that the substance of the Section 4(1) notification was not published in the locality of the village (ii) that the newspaper publication was made on 22-2-1985 i.e., after a lapse of more than 40 days from the date of Section 4(1) notification and therefore the whole acquisition proceedings are vitiated and bad in law; and (in) that the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 4-1-1985 i.e. after a lapse of one year one month and eight days from the date of Section 4(1) notification in the gazette and is therefore beyond the prescribed period of one year rendering the acquisition proceedings null and void. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the award was passed on 24-12-1987 i.e. after two years and 20 days from the date of Section 4(1) notification and is therefore hit by the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act which mandates that the award should be passed within two years from the date of declaration. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the notice u/s 9(3) of the Act not having been served to the petitioners, the award passed in their names, is liable to be quashed.
In so far as the question of publication of Section 4(1) notification is concerned, it is seen from the record that such publication has indeed been made on 9-11-1984, i.e. within 40 days from the date of gazette notification on 26-10-1984. It is not disputed that newspaper publications of Section 4(1) notification were made in this case on 22-2-1985. It would be fit and proper to test the validity of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture in so far as the question of newspaper publication is concerned under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which will hereinafter be referred to as ''the Act''. u/s 4(1) of t he Act it is necessary that a notification shall be published in two daily newspapers. Section 4(1) provides that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. A notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulated in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language. This section further goes on to state that the Collector shall within forty days from the date of publication of such notification cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. In a Division Bench judgment of this Court, reported in Principal Secretary to Government Housing Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad and Another Vs. Chilkala Adilakshmamma and Another, , it has been categorically held that the notification in the official Gazette should be the first stage. Then comes the publication in two newspapers. The Collector shall cause the substance of the notification published locally. The publication in the newspapers can be prior to such local publication or even later. As per the Andhra Pradesh Amendment he substance of the notification should be published within 40 days from such notification i.e. it can be within 40 days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette or within 40 days from the date of the last publication in the newspapers. The last of he dates such publication (normally it will be publication in the newspapers) or the date of publication of the substance locally, whichever is later, will be the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) or the rest of the purposes. Therefore, there section nothing wrong or irregular in the newspaper publications made on 22-2-1985 as the last date of publication for the purpose of Section 4(1) gazette notification should be taken the date of publication in the newspapers i.e. (sic). It is obvious that by assigning a later date as the date of notification when the publication in the newspapers of the locality is made, the Legislature has in fact given the benefit of a higher market value which may increase in the meanwhile to the landowners and therefore, the date of publication is concerned to be the date which is the last date in the sequence of events u/s 4(1) of the Act. Now, it is, therefore, clear that the crucial date in this case shall be considered to be 22-2-1985 on which the paper publication was made. The draft declaration u/s 6 of the Act in this matter has to be made within one year from date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1). It may not be out of place to quote the relevant part of the proviso to Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) in this regard which are in the following terms :
"6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose :
(1) xxxxx
Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification u/s 4 Sub-section (1) : --
(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification or
(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification",
"6(2). 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 hereinafter 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 situate, the purpose for which it is needed, it approximate area and where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected."
The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the Gazette publication of the draft declaration is 4-12-1985 which is clearly beyond the period of one year if it is reckoned from the date 26-10-1984, which, according to him, is the proper date of notification u/s 4(1). But, as stated earlier, in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, referred to above, the material date which is to be taken as the date of notification is 22-2-1985, i.e. the date on which the newspaper publications were made. Hence reckoning from the date the publication of the draft declaration in the Official Gazette on 4-12-1985 is well within the period of one year. The draft declarations were published in the newspapers as required under the provisions of Section 6(2) on 24-12-1985 and 26-12-1985. The substance of such draft declaration was published on 24-12-1986. Even looking the problem at this angle, it cannot be said that the declaration has been made beyond one year from the date 22-2-1985 which is the material date for the purpose of determining the period of one year in this case for the publication of the draft declaration. Hence, 1 do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification u/s 6 was published on 4-12-1985 i.e. after a lapse of one year, one month and eight days from the date of Section 4(1) notification in the Gazette and accordingly that argument is liable to be rejected.
The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the award was passed on 24-12-1987 i.e. after two years twenty days from date of Section 4(1) notification and is therefore hit by the provisions of Section 11A of the Act under which an award should be passed within two years from the date of declaration. Section 11-A of the Act read as follows :
"11-A. Period within which an award shall be made : (1) The Collector shall make an award u/s 22 within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration and if no award is made within that period the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse;
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement."
Now, u/s 6(2) of the Act 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 dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice being hereinafter referred to as the date of publication of the declaration). It is, therefore, clear that the same pattern is followed u/s 6(1) with regard to the last date of publication for the purpose of declaration made under that section. According to the principle thus enunciated, the last date for the purpose of Section 6 declaration is 24-1-1986, i.e. in the locality. Therefore, it may be seen that the award has been passed on 24-12-1987 which is well within the period of two years from the date of publication u/s 6(2) of the Act. Hence, this part of the submission made by the learned counsel, for the petitioners also is liable to be rejected and it cannot be said that the award passed u/s 11-A suffers from any infirmity.
The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice has been given to the petitioners u/s 9(3) of the Act and yet an award has been passed in the names of the petitioners. In this connection it may be seen that the notices under Ss. 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 were issued in the prescribed manner to all the occupiers of the lands and were also published on the notice board in the Collector''s Office, Gram Panchayat Office and also in the Land Acquisition Office on 24-1-1986. The petitioners 1 to''3 were non-residents of the village and their addresses were not known and the lands in question were under the occupation and cultivation of the villagers and so notices were served by putting them up on the land and by affixture to the notice board of Gram Panchayat. Moreover, it is also to be noted that the lands were purchased by the petitioners in the year 1985 whereas they were proposed for acquisition in 1982 and onwards. In any case the lands were notified in 1984 and only after notification for acquisition that the petitioners have purchased the lands. In any case it is to be seen that in so far as petitioners 4 to 10 are concerned, who are the occupiers of the land, they have been served with the necessary notices and since the addresses of petitioners 1 to 3 were not known, notices could not be given to them. In the given set of circumstances it is evident that it was not feasible to serve the notices on petitioners 1 to 3 who were neither residents of the village nor their addresses known. However, notices to all such persons who are the occupiers of the land have been given.
Considering all aspects of the matter and after dealing with all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners exhaustively, I have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this writ petition.
The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-.