E KRISHNA VENI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point arising in the writ appeal is whether the appellant can question the land acquisition proceedings dated 28-2-1980 by filing a writ petition in 1983 and is guilty of laches or whether she can take advantage of the subsequent legislation in the A. P. Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1983 and also the Central Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 to contend that possession aot having been taken within 9Q days as required by the A.P. Amendment 1983, the Sec. 6 declaration falls to the ground (since S. 5-A inquiry becomes mandatory) and whether the impossibility of issuing a fresh declaration under Sec. 6 within 3 years of Sec. 4 notification (as contemplated by tbe Central Amendment of 1984) results in the lapsing of S. 4 notification also?

(2.) The appellant who claims to be the owner of Ac. 0-64 cents of land in S. No 109/4B in Vadlapudi Village, Visakhapatnam Taluk, Visakhapatnam District, filed the writ petition on 23-5-1983 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring as void and illegal, the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the above said ac. 0-64 cents.

(3.) Under S. 4 of the Land Acquistion Act 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Rt. No, 41 Industries and Commerce (ID) dated 10-1-1980 (published in the A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary dated 28-2-1980, p. 22). This was done in exercise of powers conferred by notification dated 14-5-1955 under Art. 258 (1) of the Constitution of India, stating that the lands specified in the schedule and situated in Block No. 5 in Vadlapudi Village was needed for a public purpose viz., for Railways, Railway Exchange Yard etc. for the Steel Project, Visakhapatnam. Simultaneously, under Sec. 17 (4)ofthe Act the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed that in view of the urgency of the case the enquiry under Sec. 5-A is dispensed and that the provisions of Sec. 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the case. Among various survey numbers of the village acquired, include the dry land in S. No. 109/4 belonging to one Grandhi Satyanarayana of Anakapalli in an extent of ac. 2-21 cents. The appellant's name as such does not appear in the notification. Thereafter, under S. 6 of the Act a further notification was issued as G. O. Rt. No. 344 Industries and Commerce (ID) dated 6-3-1980 (published in A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary dt. 31-3-1980 at p. 2), stating that an extent of ac. 32-02 cents are needed for a public purpose viz., the location of Steel Plant and related purposes i.e., for providing Railway facilities and Railway Exchange Yard, and that it is directed that the possession of the lands be taken on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned in Sec. 9 (1) of the Act. It is also stated that a plan of the land is kept in the office of the Special Deputy Collector and may be inspected by any person. The schedule again mentions S. No. 109/4 as belonging to Grandhi Satyanarayana of Anakapalli in an extent of ac. 2-21 cents but not the name of the appellant.