SYED HABIBULLA SHAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the appellants/ writ petitioners herein, admeasuring Ac.8.37 cents in Sy.No.321/1 and 321/2 & 188 of Gummuluru Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, was initially sought to be acquired for the purpose of providing house sites for the weaker Sec. of the society. It appears that, ultimately, only Ac.5.73 cents of land was taken over. The appellants had thereupon approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.4234 of 2013, contending that no award had been passed from 20/12/2003 when a notification had been issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein-after referred to as "the 1894 Act") till the filing of the writ petition. The appellants contended that Sec. 11-A of the 1894 Act mandated that, where an award is not passed within three years from the date of notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, the entire proceedings would lapse. The appellants, on this basis, contended that the acquisition process had lapsed and the land should be given back to the appellants.

(2.) A Learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, disposed of the writ petition, by an order, dtd. 25/2/2013. The Learned Single Judge noticed that Sec. 17 of the 1894 Act was invoked on the ground of urgency and that the mandate under Sec. 11-A of the 1894 Act would not apply, wherever Sec. 17 has been invoked. The Learned Single Judge took this view on the basis of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1993 S.C. 2517. The Learned Single Judge also noticed that the said view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was doubted in a subsequent Judgment in the case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,(2011) 9 SCC 354. and that the matter had been referred to a larger bench. However, the Learned Single Judge, on the ground that the ratio laid down in Satendra Prasad Jain (1-supra) continues, till a contrary view is taken by a larger bench, had dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Appeal.