GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KOLLUTLA OBI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the orders/awards made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) and directing Land Acquisition Officer to pass fresh awards keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

(3.) In 1956 Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 (in short the Nagarjuna Act) was enacted. Under the said Act Sections 11 and 23 of the Act were amended. In 1979 writ petition was filed by one K. Rangaiah and others questioning constitutional validity of Nagarjuna Act. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated 31-8-1979 in Writ Petition No.2110/79 (K. Rangaiah vs. State of A.P., (AIR 1980 AP 165) held that the amendment to Section 23(1) (first clause) of the Act as made by the Nagarjuna Act is violative of second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution) only so far it relates to acquisition of land within the ceiling limit and is under personal cultivation. The correctness of the judgment was questioned before this Court. Several other writ petitions were also decided following K. Rangaiahs case (supra). All the Civil Appeals against those judgments were taken up by a Constitution Bench in Civil Appeal Nos.1220-42/82 and connected matters. This Court did not go into the constitutional issues in view of the fact that respondents were small land owners having less than one acre of land. Possession has been taken in the lands involved in those appeals on different dates between 1980 and 1984. Being of the impression that the notifications had lapsed, fresh notifications were issued under Sections 4 and 6 in 1991. Land Acquisition Officer after due inquiry determined the market value in accordance with the Nagarjuna Act and the awards were made in 1992. In February 1997 and thereafter writ petitions were filed questioning validity of the actions taken and prayed for direction to determine the market value on the date of notification in 1991 under Section 4(1) of the Act without resorting to Nagarjuna Act. The Division Bench held that subsequent notifications were really unnecessary in view of the decision of this Court in Allahabad Development Authority and Ors. vs. Nasiruzzaman and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 424). It was held that when possession of the land has been taken pursuant to Section 17 of the Act, the provisions of Section 11-A do not have any application. Therefore, subsequent notifications were held to be of no consequence. After being held so, the High Court remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer by quashing the awards and directed passing of fresh orders.