Karneedi Rama Rao and ors. Vs. the Collector and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults..........and the same were challenged in w.p.no. 6919/81 raising two contentions viz., (1) non-publication of the substances of draft notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act and (2) that the petitioners were small farmers.2. in the said writ petition, while the fourth petitioner herein was the first petitioner, her husband i.e., the father of petitioners 1 to 3 was the second petitioner. as karneedi appa rao, the father of petitioners 1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no. 4 had expired, petitioners 1 to 3 combinedly with her mother have filed this writ petition. on verification, i find that the lands which were notified earlier are subject matter of this writ petition also. it is true that if the above writ petition was allowed only on the ground of non-publication of substance of section 4(1) notification, the authorities were not precluded from reinitiating proceedings for complying the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. but that is not the situation here. the above writ petition no. 6919 of 1981 was allowed not only on the ground of non-publication of substance of section 4(1) notification, but also on the ground that the petitioners therein were small.....

Judgment:

ORDER

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.

1. The lands in question which are notified for acquisition by invoking the provisions contained under Land acquisition Act, 1894, were already the subject matter of acquisition earlier and the same were challenged in W.P.No. 6919/81 raising two contentions viz., (1) non-publication of the substances of draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and (2) that the petitioners were small farmers.

2. In the said writ petition, while the fourth petitioner herein was the first petitioner, her husband i.e., the father of petitioners 1 to 3 was the second petitioner. As Karneedi Appa Rao, the father of petitioners 1 to 3 and husband of petitioner No. 4 had expired, petitioners 1 to 3 combinedly with her mother have filed this writ petition. On verification, I find that the lands which were notified earlier are subject matter of this writ petition also. It is true that if the above writ petition was allowed only on the ground of non-publication of substance of Section 4(1) notification, the authorities were not precluded from reinitiating proceedings for complying the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. But that is not the situation here. The above writ petition No. 6919 of 1981 was allowed not only on the ground of non-publication of substance of Section 4(1) notification, but also on the ground that the petitioners therein were small farmers. The issue with regard to small farmers is not a technical issue and touches on merits, as the Governmental instructions warrant that the lands of small farmers should not be acquired as far as possible, unless it is inevitable. When the contention of the petitioners that they were small farmers and that their lands were not liable to be acquired was accepted by this court earlier and the same had become final as stated by Mrs. Rohini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, there cannot be any acquisition.

3. In the circumstances, the acquisition of the lands in question pursuant to the Section 4(1) notification, dated 17-2-87 is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.

4. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.