CH RAMALINGAIAH Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ten petitioners in this case are the owners of the land in an extent of Ac-1-82 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/2 to 133/5 and 132/6 Yanada Village, Visakhapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners 1 and 2 have jointly purchased an extent of Ac. 1-06 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/6 and 133/3 from the petitioners 4 and 5 under a registered document No. 1212, dated 31-1-1985 after paying considerable amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Petitioner No. 3 is the owner of an extent of Ac.0-76 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/4, 133/5 and 132/6 of the same village. Before purchasing the land, petitioners vendees had obtained permission from the Urban Ceiling authorities vide C.C. No. 7080/82 dated 10-5-1982. The lands are situated outside Visakhapatnam Municipal limits and do not attract the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. All the petitioners herein pray for issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award No. 35/86 dated 24-12-1987 passed by the 3rd respondent herein, in so far as acquisition of petitioners' land to an extent of Ac. 1-82 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 133/2 to 133/5 and 132/6 of Yanada village, Visakhapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to quash the same and to direct the respondents not to acquire the petitioners' land.

(2.) In a matter like this it may be necessary to concentrate upon a few relevant dates which have led to the acquisition proceedings. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_346_AIR(AP)_1989Html1.htm</FRM> The above said dates are not disputed between the parties and they are accepted by all concerned.

(3.) Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions; (1) that the substance of the S.4(1) notification was not published in the locality of the village (ii) that the newspaper publication was made on 22-2-1985 i.e., after a lapse of more than 40 days from the date of S.4(1) notification and therefore the whole acquisition proceedings are vitiated and bad in law; and (iii) that the notification u/s.6 of the Act was published on 4-1-1985 i.e. after a lapse of one year one month and eight days from the date of S.4(1) notification in the gazette and is therefore beyond the prescribed period of one year rendering the acquisition proceedings null and void. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the award was passed on 24-12-1987 i.e. after two years and 20 days from the date of S.4(1) notification and is therefore hit by the provisions of S.11-A of the Act which mandates that the award should be passed within two years from the date of declaration. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the notice under S.9(3) of the Act not having been served to the petitioners, the award passed in their names, is liable to be quashed.