THE CHAIRMAN Vs. M. RAMANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge dtd. 10/6/2009, by which the relief prayed for in the writ petition, so to say, has been granted. The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner asking for appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned proceedings initiated by the Commissioner (Appeals), Urban Land Ceiling, Office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, confirming the orders of the fifth respondent dtd. 23/4/1997 and for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents to pass an award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner acquired by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust.

(2.) The factual position of the case is that on 31/8/1972, the Visakhapatnam Port Trust took possession of a large plot of land to an extent of Ac.2.64 cents in Sy.No.1/1 of Kancharapalem Village, Visakhapatnam Mandal and District. After possession was taken, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force and naturally, whether the petitioner was possessing or owning surplus land or not as per the aforesaid Act was to be determined. Accordingly, proceedings under the aforesaid Act were initiated. In course of time, the aforesaid Act was repealed. Naturally, the pending proceedings challenged before this Court abated and the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order, found that the aforesaid Act stood repealed and accordingly declared that the proceedings initiated under the aforesaid Act stood abated. But in the meanwhile, the action of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner did not reach finality in the acquisition proceedings initiated. Under these circumstances, consequential relief was asked for directing the respondent authorities to initiate land acquisition proceedings. It appears that the learned Trial Judge has not granted this consequential relief.

(3.) In view of the quashing of the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, so to say, the land may or may not revert to the petitioner. Therefore, we clarify that the action taken by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust authority vis-a-vis the petitioner will be governed by appropriate laws. For this purpose, this Court cannot issue any mandate.