V ADAMMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27th November, 1989, dismissing the writ petition No. 7417/1988 filed by the appellant challenging the proceedings for acquisition of lands initiated by notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) published in the District Gazette dated 14-9-1984.

(2.) The contention raised before the learned single Judge and also reiterated before us is that, though urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published at the same time, as the possession was not taken within three months of invoking the urgency clause, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act ought to have been held as contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act introduced by the A.P. State Amendment Act 9/1983 (here in after referred to as 'State Amendment'). The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches as he took into consideration the circumstance that the award was also passed and the writ petition was filed on 2-5-1988.

(3.) By the date of Section 4(1) notification the Act was amended by Central Amendment Act 68/84 (hereinafter called the Central Amendment). During the hearing, in view of the Central Amendment and the recent Full Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 9776/1988 dated 21-8-1990, the question of repugnancy of sub-section (5) of Section 17 as introduced by the State Amendment with the provisions of Section 17 as subsequently amended by the Central Amendment arose. The petitioner's counsel made submissions contending that there was no repugnancy between the provisions of Section 17(5) introduced by the State Amendment and the amendments to Section 17 of the Act made by the subsequent Central Amendment Act. A notice was issued to the learned Advocate General to hear him on the question of repugnancy and the learned Advocate General has appeared and made his submissions and judgment was reserved.