STEEL PLANT VISAKHAPATNAM Vs. NARLA GOPALAKRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents owners of the land in question filed Writ Petition No.7450 of 2002 questioning the action of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam in having issued Memo dated 27-3-2002 as illegal and unconstitutional and prayed to quash the same with a consequential direction to issue a fresh notification for acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Before we proceed further brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated: Invoking urgency provisions, notification-dated 16-1-1981 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking to acquire the land in question. Pursuant to invocation of urgency clause, possession was also taken on 29-9-1982. The proceedings to acquire the land were challenged before the court in W.P.No.9538 of 1982. The court by its judgment-dated 4-12-1985 quashed the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act with liberty reserved to the petitioners-appellants to issue fresh notification within a period of three months. Fresh notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 15-9-1989 and was published in the Gazette on 25-9-1989, which was again challenged by the owners in W.P.No.6254 of 1990. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, but in appeal (W.A.No.973 of 1995) a Division Bench of this court by order dated 6-9-1995 set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) The Special Deputy Collector, LA thereafter through Memo dated 27-3-2002 informed the owners that the compensation could not be paid to them in view of the pendency of the dispute and asked them to claim the amount as determined by Lok Adalat which was challenged by them in W.P.No.7450 of 2002. On a consideration of the submissions made on either side and the material on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition on 23-10-2002 holding that during the pendency of the second writ petition i.e. W.P.No.6254 of 1990 and Writ Appeal No.973 of 1995 there was no stay and therefore there was no justification on the part of the District Collector not to proceed further in the matter and pass award under Section 11 of the Act. The learned Single Judge thus held that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the second notification dated 25-9-1989 are vitiated as the notification had lapsed by efflux of time. Consequently a direction was issued for issuance of a fresh notification and to pass award in accordance with law.