NARASAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal by the petitioners in the writ petition - 37 in all- is from the judgment of our learned brother P.A.Choudary J., dismissing Writ Petition No. 6350 df 1982 on the ground of laches.

(2.) An extent of Ac. 31.37 guntas of land in Doutyal Tarfa, Bodhan Taluk, Nizamabad district was sought to be acquired by the district collector, Nazamabad for the purpose of providing house-sites for weaker sections. The competent authority, after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), issued simultaneously the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Acton 1-12-1976. Challenging the legality of that notification, WP.No. 1697/78 was filed and this Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim stay of all further proceedings on 25-4-1978. When the writ petition came up for final hearing on 13-8-1982, this Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition giving them liberty to file a fresh writ petition if advised and also granted interim stay for a period of 30 days. Before that period of 30 days expired, W.P. No. 6350/82 was filed, from out of which the present writ appeal arises. On 14-9-1982 interim stay Was granted by this Court in W.P.No. 6350/82. When the matter came up for final hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition taking the view that "counting the delay upto filing of second writ petition, there is nearly 6 years delay on the part of the petitioners". The principal contention advanced by the writ petitioners that after the A.P. Act 9 of 1983 came into force retrospectively with effect from 12-9-1975, there could not have been simultaneous publication of Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration, was met by the learned Judge observing "In the normal course of circumstances, I would have unhesitatingly set aside these acquisition proceedings on the basis of their violation of Section 4 of Act IX of 1983 and also for the reason that Section 5-A enquiry has been mechanically dispensed with". But on the ground of laches, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) Sri S. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, conten'ds that in view of the A.P. Act 9 of 1983, Section 6 declaration must go; when once Section 6 declaration goes, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act also should go since Explanation 1 to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6, which saves the period of limitation in respect of cases to which the first proviso applies, has no application inasmuch as Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration were simultaneously published. Opposing these contentions, the learned Government Pleader maintains that the appellants were solely responsible for the long delay in the matter; by filing the writ petition and obtaining stay, they prolonged the litigation for an unreasonably long period of time; at the time when the first writ petition was filed, the A.P. Act 9 of 1983 was not enacted and, therefore, the appellants should not be permitted to take advantage of the law that came into force subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and be allowed to gain an unfair advantage. Even if Section 6 declaration goes, he contends, Section 4(1) notification should be saved and all subsequent actions pursuant to that notification should be permitted to be taken.