VINOD CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed challenging the notification issued by the Respondents dated 16-9-1997 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and for consequential declaration that notification issued under Section 4(1) dated 3-5-1994 as illegal and invalid.

(2.) The petitioners are the owners of the premises bearing No.11-4-660, Mehar Manzil, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The said property was under lease to Respondent No.2. The 1 st respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in G.O. Rt. No. 198, dated 3-5-1994 published in A.P. Gazette dated 10-5-1994 proposing to acquire an extent of 3050 sq. metres. Thereupon 5(A) enquiry was held and the petitioners filed their objections. However, no action was taken. But, however, the 1st respondent issued an errata to Section 4(1) notification published in the Press on 19-5-1995 wherein the area was altered as 3780 sq. metres in the place of 3050 sq. metres originally notified. Questioning the said action of the respondents in issuing errata thereby increasing the extent covered under the original notification under Section 4(1) and also declaration under Section 6 was challenged by the Petitioners in WP No. 13766 of 1995. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 25-3-1997. Against the said order, Writ Appeal No.774 of 1997 was filed and the same was allowed on 11-9-1997. Consequent on the order of the Division Bench, the respondents issued declaration in Memo dated 16-9-1997 under Section 6 of the Act in respect of 3050 sq. metres and the same was published in the Press on 17-9-1997." The said notification is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) It is the case 'of the petitioners that Section 4(1) notification was published on 3-5-1995 and it was last published on 20-5-1994. There-fore, Section 6(1) declaration should have been made on or before 19-5-1995 i.e.', within one year of 4(1) notification. However, the Memo dated : 9-5-1995 (errata) and Section 6 Declaration were published in the press on 19-5-1995. Since the impugned declaration under Section 6 is beyond one year, the notification has to be set aside and consequently Section 4(1) notification dated: 3-5-1994 is also liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submit that Section 6 Declaration is within time and the same cannot be interfered with and hence he submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed.