ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is the owner of Ac. Order 29 cents of land in Sy.No. 382/10 of Amalapuram Town and Mandal, East Godavari District. The same is sought to be acquired. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was issued on 9-5-2003, followed by a declaration under Section 6. The petitioner challenges the same.
2. The petitioner contends that on the southern side of his land, a Community Hall is being constructed by the association of a community in the town. The said association is said to have approached the petitioner for transfer of his land for the purpose of parking area, at a throw away price, and when he refused to succumb to their demand, they have invoked the Government machinery, for acquisition of the said land. The petitioner alleges that there is no public purpose involved in the matter and the acquisition is for the benefit of private agencies. The competence of the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, to issue notifications is challenged. The petitioner also challenges the action of the respondents in invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated that in an extent of Ac. 1-15 cents of Government land in Sy.No.382/7 to 382/8 of Amalapuram Town, a kalyana mandapam is being constructed in the name of an association called Telaga Abhudaya Sangham, with the funds made available to them by the Members of the Parliament, the Legislative Assembly and the District Collector. It is stated that since the kalyana mandapam does not have adequate parking area, the Amalapuram Municipality has passed a resolution dated 28-4-2003, requesting the Revenue Department to acquire Ac.0-29 cents of land belonging to the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 are said to have been issued. In reply to the allegation of the petitioner that the entire proceedings are at the instance of a particular community, the respondents state that 'Telaga Abhudaya Sangham requested to acquire the said land for the welfare of the public' and the acquisition was undertaken accordingly. The respondents contend that the District Collector has been delegated the powers to approve/issue notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act in respect of the lands for the benefit of the Municipality. The invocation of urgency clause is sought to be justified.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
5. Through the impugned notifications, the land of the petitioner is sought to be acquired. The purpose mentioned in the notification is as under:
For parking of vehicles and to control vehicular traffic near Community Hall'
Invoking powers under Section 17 of the Act, the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. The 2nd respondent approved the notifications.
6. In the light of these facts, it needs to be seen as to whether there existed public purpose to resort to acquisition under the Act, urgency to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A and whether the 2nd respondent is conferred with the power to issue/approve the notifications.
7. The acquisition of properties held by individuals by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed under the Act can be justified, if only there existed public purpose. The expression 'public purpose' has been interpreted to be too wide in its scope. No hard and fast rule or criteria exists for this purpose. Even in the absence of a definite public purpose, acquisition can be resorted to by having recourse to the procedure under Chapter VII of the Act, in case the acquisition is for the benefit of the Company. The adjudication by the Courts into these aspects will be limited to see as to whether the undisputed facts justify the existence of public purpose.
8. The petitioner categorically pleaded that the Community Hall is being constructed by an association of a particular caste and that the present acquisition is at their instance. The respondents sought to justify their action by stating that the Hall is being constructed in a Government land and with the funds made available by the Legislatures and the Collector. If the construction of a Hall is undertaken by a particular association, be it of caste, community or any profession, the mere fact that the land and funds were provided by the Government, does not transform the purpose into a public one. In Para 8 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated as under:
'It is submitted that the Telaga Abhudaya Sangham requested to acquire the said land for the welfare of the public'
This averment itself is a sufficient indication that the proposal emanated from an association and not from any State agency.
9. The requisition made by the Municipality is treated as one of the factors to justify the existence of public purpose. A reading of the resolution discloses that it was nothing but a camouflage to cover an otherwise private purpose. The resolution is so cleverly worded that a semblance of public purpose is sought to be attached to the acquisition, without subjecting the Municipality to undergo any financial hardship or part away with its funds. The resolution reads that the Municipality does not have sufficient funds for acquisition of the land of the petitioner and the same may be acquired with the funds of the Revenue Department, to be provided for the benefit of the Community Hall. The record discloses that the Hall is being constructed by an association. Part of funds is being provided by the Legislatures and the Government. Construction is being undertaken by the Panchayat Raj Department. Resolution is passed by the Municipality. Acquisition is undertaken by the Revenue Department. The Hall, however, does not belong to any departments of the Government. If at all anything, the whole exercise discloses as to how various departments have provided their services to a purpose, which is private, pure and simple. This Court, therefore, finds that hardly there exists any public purpose in the acquisition.
10. Even assuming that most liberal construction needs to be given for the expression 'public purpose' and the declaration by the acquiring agency is conclusive in this regard, it needs to be seen as to whether there was a justification in invoking the urgency clause.
11. The kalyana mandapam is said to be under construction. The purpose of acquiring the land of the petitioner is for providing parking place therefor. The only remedy at the stage of taking decision as to acquisition, which is accorded to the aggrieved party under the Act, is an enquiry under Section 5A. The scope of this enquiry is very limited. The time that is required to be given to the affected parties to submit their explanations is one month. No hearing is contemplated. The whole enquiry can be wound up within six weeks to two months. This limited right can be denied to the affected citizen, if only the acquisition cannot wait for the period during which the enquiry may spread over. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that there exists any such urgency as to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act.
12. Coming to the question as to whether the 2nd respondent has jurisdiction to issue/approve the notification, it needs to be seen that basically it is the State Government that is conferred with the power to issue/approve the notifications under Sections 4 and 6. It is only in respect of certain limited matters that such powers are delegated to District Collectors. Except in matters where there is a specific delegation of power, the District Collector cannot issue notifications under the Act. The respondents sought to justify the present notifications issued by the 2nd respondent on the basis of the delegation contained in the Notification dated 21-8-1986. The delegation of powers of the State Government on the District Collector contained in this notification are as under:
Delegation of Powers to the District Collectors for approval of Notifications, etc., for Purpose of Municipalities in the State, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal, Quli Qutub Shah Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad'
The impugned notifications could have been sustained if only the purpose of present acquisition was of the Municipality. Obviously, to bring the acquisition within the scope of this, a resolution was got passed by the Municipality. Except its name, the Municipality has no claim or stake in the acquisition. Neither the Hall belongs to it, nor it provides funds for acquisition of the land. It is true that it can request the Government to acquire the land and place at its disposal. In such a case, the purpose can be said to be that of Municipality. However, on such acquisition, the acquired land vests in the Municipality and it will be in a position to utilise and otherwise manage the land. That is not so here. Even after acquisition, the land would pass on to the association, which is constructing a Community Hall. The Municipality does not retain any control over it. Therefore, what is resorted to by the 2nd respondent as well as the Municipality is only a colourable exercise of power. The same is impermissible in law.
13. The petitioner categorically stated that he was approached for parting with the land for the purpose of providing parking place to the Community Hall. His contention stands buttressed with the averments in the counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Revenue Officials have also approached the petitioner to sell the land at the cost of Rs. 30,000/- per cent. The whole exercise discloses as to how a private individual, like the petitioner, is sought to be deprived of his freedom and right to enjoy the ownership of his land and to put it to the use according to his wish. In a country governed by rule of law, such an exercise cannot be permitted to be undertaken.
14. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any legal or factual basis for the acquisition of the land in question. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 challenged by the petitioner are set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.