PALAKURTIVARI CHOULTRY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MACHILIPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Choultry. It is possessed of movable and immovable properties. An extent of Ac.6.09 cents of land in Survey Nos. 167/3 and 170/1 of Balaramunipet of Machilipatnam Town was notified for acquisition by the respondents, through a notification under Section 4(1) and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') issued on 25.05.1992 and 04.10.1992 respectively. Notices under Section 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act were also issued. The petitioner contends that the respondents did not pass any award, in respect of the acquired land, and by operation of Section 11-A of the Act, the entire proceedings have lapsed. Accordingly, it seeks a Writ of Mandamus, in the form of a direction, to the respondents to issue a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, with reference to the said land. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. The fact that notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act have been issued, in respect of the land of the petitioner, is not disputed. It is stated that the possession of the said land was taken and that it was distributed among the beneficiaries. Respondents state that the further proceedings under the Act could not be taken, on account of the fact that the Government issued a notification under the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956, (for short 'the Slum Improvement Act'). According to them, when the same land is the subject matter of two notifications, under two enactments, it would he impermissible tor them, to pass am award much less to issue a fresh notification, by operation of Section 11 A of the Act.

(2.) Sri P.R.Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the land is vested in the Government, on taking possession, it is not at all open to the respondents to deny to the petitioner, the benefit under the Act, be it, in the matter of giving effect to Section 11-A of the Act, or passing the award. He contends that the respondents cannot deny the benefit of the land as well as its compensation to the petitioners. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that though the said land was acquired, through the relevant notifications under the Act and vested in the Government, further proceedings could not be taken, on account of the fact that a notification came to be issued under the Slum Improvement Act. He further contends that once the possession of the land is taken, Section 11-A of the Act does not have any application. He places reliance upon certain Judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court.

(3.) It is a matter of record that the land of the petitioner was acquired, by invoking the provisions of the Act. All the steps under the said Act, except to the extent of passing award, have been taken. It was at about that stage, that a notification is said to have been issued under the Slum Improvement Act.