1990 (3) TMI 384 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the land acquisition for implementing the Master Plan.
2. Adequacy of the public purpose stated in the notifications.
3. Conduct of the Section 5-A enquiry.
4. Acquisition of properties owned by religious denominations under Article 26 of the Constitution.
5. Alleged non-existence of the Master Plan.
6. Specific objections related to individual notifications and properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Land Acquisition for Implementing the Master Plan:
The court held that the purpose stated in the notifications, such as the implementation of the Master Plan, construction of Kalyana Mantapams, Choultries, and widening of roads, constitutes a public purpose. The acquisition aimed at the integrated development of Tirumala, ensuring the sanctity, safety, and convenience of the pilgrim traffic. The court emphasized that the acquisition of private properties for planned development is permissible and necessary for the public interest.

2. Adequacy of the Public Purpose Stated in the Notifications:
The court found that the purposes mentioned in the notifications were clear and specific enough to enable the affected persons to submit their objections. The purposes such as "implementation of the Master Plan," "construction of Kalyana Mantapam," and "widening of roads" were deemed sufficient to constitute a public purpose. The court rejected the argument that a detailed plan specifying the exact structures should be prepared before issuing acquisition notifications.

3. Conduct of the Section 5-A Enquiry:
The court examined the conduct of the Section 5-A enquiry and found that, generally, the enquiries were held in accordance with the law. However, it acknowledged certain procedural defects, such as the non-supply of the Master Plan to some objectors. Despite these irregularities, the court concluded that there was no failure of justice warranting interference. The overall purpose of acquisition was clear to the objectors, and the court emphasized the discretionary nature of the remedy under Article 226.

4. Acquisition of Properties Owned by Religious Denominations under Article 26:
The court addressed the contention that the acquisition of properties owned by religious denominations would violate Article 26 of the Constitution. It held that unless the acquisition completely deprives the denomination of its right to own and acquire property necessary for its survival, the acquisition is valid. The court noted that the affected religious institutions would be provided with alternate sites, allowing them to continue their activities.

5. Alleged Non-Existence of the Master Plan:
The court rejected the argument that the Master Plan did not exist. It clarified that the Master Plan referred to the development plan envisaged in 1975, which was being implemented in certain sectors. The court held that the purpose of implementing the Master Plan, wherever mentioned, was not a non-existent purpose.

6. Specific Objections Related to Individual Notifications and Properties:
The court addressed various specific objections raised by the appellants:
- In W.A. No. 1363/89, the court acknowledged a procedural defect in the Section 5-A enquiry but concluded that it did not warrant interference.
- In W.A. No. 1384/89, the court found that the Land Acquisition Officer had dealt with the objections adequately, despite not specifically addressing the construction of the Fourth Choultry.
- In W.A. No. 1493/89, the court found that the enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted properly, with the objector's statement recorded.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the validity of the acquisition notifications and the reasoning of the learned single Judge. The court emphasized the larger public interest in the integrated development of Tirumala and the necessity of acquiring private properties to achieve this goal. The court also noted that the T.T.D. would take appropriate steps to address the concerns of religious institutions and ensure the proper relocation of temples, if necessary.