VINOD CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 27-10-1997 made in WP No. 24150 of 1997. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition.

(2.) The backgrounds facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: The petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing No. 11-4-660, Mehar Manzil, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The said property was under lease to respondent No. 2. The 1st respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for short) in G.O.Rt. No. 198 dated 3-5-1994, published in A.P. Gazette on 10-5-1994 proposing to acquire an extent of 3050 sq. meters. Thereupon Section (5-A) enquiry was held that the petitioners filed their objections. However, no action was taken. The 1st respondent issued Errata to Section 4(1) Notification published in the press on 19-5-1995 wherein the area was altered as 3780 sq. meters in the place of 3050 sq. meters originally notified. Questioning the said action of the respondents in issuing errata, thereby increasing the extent covered under the original notification issued under Section 4(1), and also the declaration under Section 6 the petitioners filed WP No. 13766 of 1995. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 25-3-1997. Against the said order, WA No. 774 of 1997 was filed and the same was allowed on 11-9-1997. M/s. Singareni Collieries, who is the beneficiary of the acquisition and who is the 2nd respondent in this appeal, being aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench in the writ appeal, preferred SLP (C) No. 1592 of 2000 to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 11-4-2001, has opined that acquisition of the land to the extent covered by the errata is illegal and irregular and, therefore, there is no error in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Supreme Court while holding so and considering the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant therein, that in no case the entire acquisition proceedings could be quashed, as the original notification covering an area of 3050 sq. is legal and valid, was pleased to observe-

(3.) In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench in the writ appeal, the respondents issued declaration in Memo dated 16-9-1997 under Section 6 of the Act in respect of 3050 sq. meters and the same was published in the press on 17-9-1997. The said notification is challenged in the writ petition.