ESTATE OFFICER HUDA Vs. T GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases, in which arguments have been advanced with great persistence by counsel on either side, essentially relate to one interesting question; where the Section 4 (1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") is quashed by the High Court or the Supreme Court at the instance of some of the land owners, whether it is permissible for the other landholders whose lands are covered by the same notification but who have participated in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and at all other stages and in respect of whom awards have been passed and cases are pend ing before the civil Court for higher compensation can come before the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India after lapse of number of years to seek quashing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands and restoration of possession of the land on the ground that the Section 4 (1) Notification has been quashed.

(2.) An enumeration of the facts, in brief, is necessary to project the analysis of the question raised, though we would have to refer in greater detail to the facts of each case later on.

(3.) A notification was published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 4-8-1977 purporting to acquire lands in Ameerpet in the city of Hyderabad for the public purpose of developing schemes of residential and commercial complexes by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The notification included the lands of the respondents in the Writ Appeals and the Petitioners in the Civil RevisionPetitions and the Writ Petition. In the enquiries under Sections 5-A, 9, etc., the respective land-holders participated and the matter went to the civil Court on references made under Sections 18 or 30 of the Act. While the references were pending, decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 5839 to 5842 of 1983 came on 30-9-1985, quashing the notification under Section4(l)of the Act at the instance of the four land-holders, whose land had been acquired by the same notification. The Supreme Court in effect confirmed the Full Bench decision of this Court decided on 2-3-1983. Thenotification was found by the High Court to be invalid as ithad not been published simultaneously at the site and it was found invalid by the Apex Court as the substance of the notification had not been published within forty days of the issue of Section 4(1) Notification as was required to be done under the Andhra Pradesh Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Act 9 of 1983.. enacted with retrospective effect from 12-9-1975. After the Judgment was delivered, some attempts were made by some of the previous landholder parties to move the Municipal Corporation to grant permission to them for construction on the lands, which being ultimately refused, gave rise to Writ Petition No. 14570 /1993. In some other case, a memo was filed in the civil Court on behalf of the Land Acquisition Official to close the land acquisition cases in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court. But later on, another memo having been filed to confine the closure of the land acquisition cases only to the four land holders who had gone to the High Court and the Supreme Court and order 5 having been accordingly passed, Writ Petition No. 14394/86, C.R.P.Nos. 4035 and 4036 of 1989, and Writ Petition No. 892/91 were filed.