S S NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 33 years have elapsed, ever since the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents started, in the context of acquisition of about two acres of land in TS No.83/1, Waltair, owned by the petitioner. The pendulum swung on both the directions, and is yet to come to rest.

(2.) A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, on 20.3.1978, proposing to acquire the said land for establishing a Zonal Centre for the then Town Planning Trust, Visakhapatnam. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 6.5.1980.

(3.) THE third somersault took place on 30.4.1998, when the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.222, cancelling its order in G.O. Ms. No.121, dated 27.2.1990. For the third time, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP No.14818 of 1998. THE writ petition was allowed. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed WP No.6300 of 1999, seeking restoration of possession of the land. Both the writ petitions are allowed. THE 3rd respondent filed two writ appeals, being WA Nos.2312 of 1998 and 1074 of 1999. THE writ appeals were dismissed on 27.2.2002. THE 3rd respondent carried the matter to the Supreme Court, in CA Nos.1665 and 1666 of 2004. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the civil appeals; set aside the judgments rendered by this Court in the writ petitions and writ appeals, and directed the Government to take a decision, whether or not to cancel G.O. Ms. No.121, dated 27.2.1990. Almost as a logical extension of its past conduct, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.314, Municipal Administration, dated 18.5.2009, directing that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act be withdrawn, in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act. Going a step further, it directed the 3rd respondent to handover the possession of the property to the petitioner. As a ministerial act, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent initiated steps for withdrawal.