GOVT OF A P Vs. K SIVANANDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26-4-1995 disposing of the Writ Petition No.6082/1995 with a direction W.A.No. 629/1995 is filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Rajampet, Cuddapah who are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. W.A.NO. 630/1995 is filed by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited who is the third respondent in the writ petition The two writ petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in both the appeals. Therefore, the parties in these appeals are conveniently referred as petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the first petitioner is owner of the land measuring 0-47 cents in Survey Number 79/3 and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the land measuring Ac. 1-86 cents in Survey Numbers 79-4, 75/6 to 79/12 of Mangampet village, Obulavaripalli mandal, Cuddapah district. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of the land on 15-4-1994. The local publication was made on 18-4-1994 under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the news papers on 24th and 25th June, 1994 respectively. The Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act waspublished on 16-4-1994. The local publication of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made on 22-4-1994 and the same was published in the newpapers on 27th June, 1994. The possession of the land was taken on 12th July, 1994 and the possession was handed over to the third respondent-Corporation on 27-7-1994. The Sub-Collector addressed a letter on 16-2-1995 to the third respondent-Corporation to deposit Rs. 12.05 lakhs towards estimated compensation.

(3.) The learned Advocate General contended that publication of declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act on 16-4-1994 i.e., immediately on tiie next day of the publication of the draft notification under Section 4(1) is not illegal or arbitrary and no prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners and the learned single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition to that extent.