GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.versusKOLLUTLA OBI REDDY AND ORS.

                       GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.                                   A
                                     V.

                  KOLLUTLA OBI REDDY AND ORS.

                            AUGUST 10, 2005

               [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]                              B

    Land Acquisition Act, I894; Sections 4(1), 6, I7 and I8/Nagarjuna
Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, I956; Sections 11 and 231
Constitution of India, I950; Article 3I-A :

      Issuance of Notification for acquisition of lands-Amendment of
                                                                                c
Nagarjuna Act-Issuance of fresh Notifications for acquisition and
determination of market value in accordance with the amended Act-
Award-Challenge ta--Quashed by High Court holding that issuance of
subsequent Notification unnecessary-On appeal, Held : Issuance offresh
Notifications challenged belatedly-Since Reference Petition in terms of         D
Section I8 of I894 Act pending/or adjudication, judgment ofthe High Coi;rt
unsustainable-References pending/closed by the High Court stands revived

     The constitutional validity of the Nagarjuna Sagar Project
(Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 was challenged before the High Court
                                                                                E
of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court held that the amendment to Section
23(1) of the Nagarjuna Act is violative of the Second proviso to Article
31-A of the Constitution of India so far as it relates to acquisition of land
within the ceiling limit and is under personal cultivation. Correctness of
the judgment of High Court was challenged before this Court. In the
meantime, possession of the lands in disputes in these appeal has been          F
taken over by the authorities, but a fresh Notification was issued under
Sections 4 and 6 of. the 1894 Act and market value of the land so
acquisitioned was determined in accordance with the amended provisions
ofNagarjuna Act. Respondents-land owners challenged the actions of the
authorities concerned in determining afresh the market value of the lands       G
in question. High Court remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition
Officer for passing fresh awards Hence the present appeals.

     Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD : The High Court was moved in these matters by writ                   H
                                    513
    514                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   petitioners long after issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) and
    declarations were made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894. On that ground alone the writ petitions should not have been
    entertained. Additionally, the respondents clearly accepted that references
    in terms of Section 18 of the 1894 Act were pending. The High Court has
    not even indicated any reason as to why the writ petitions were being
B
    entertained when the references in terms of Section 18 of the 1894 Act
    were pending. On that score also the High Court's judgment becomes
    unsustainable. Hence, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The
    reference which were pending and have been closed in view of the impugned
    judgment of the High Court shall be revived. (516-D-F]
c
         Ajlatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285; State
    ofT.N and Ors. v. L. Krishnan and Ors., [1996] 1 SCC 250 and Municipal
    Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co.
    Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., [1996] 11 SCC 501, relied on.

D        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3274-3475
    of 2003.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.97 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. No. 4712 and 4725 of 1997.

E       Gopal Subhramananyan, Manoj Saxena, Amit Meharia, Debojit Borkakati
    and Mohanprasad Meharia for the Appellants.

        S.S.S. Reddy, Mrs. Kavitha R., Mrs. S. Usha Reddy and Mrs. D.
    Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents.
F         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : In these appeals challenge is to the judgment
    of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the
    orders/awards made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act')
G   and directing Land Acquisition Officer to pass fresh awards keeping in view
    the observations made in the judgment.

          A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffic1..:.

          In 1956 Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 (in
H   short the 'Nagarjuna Act') was enacted. Under the said Act Sections 11 and
                 GOVT. OF A.P. v. K.O. REDDY [PASAYAT, J.]                      515

    23 of the Act were amended. In 1979 writ petition was filed by one K.               A
    Rangaiah and others questioning constitutional validity ofNagarjuna Act. A
    Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated
    31.8.1979 in writ petition No.2110/79 (K. Rangaiah v. State of A.P., AIR
    (1980) A.P. 165) held that the amendment to Section 23(1) (first clause) of
    the Act as made by the Nagarjuna Act is violative of second proviso to Article
    31-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') only so       B
    far it relates to acquisition of land within the ceiling limit and is under
    personal cultivation. The correctness of the judgment was questioned before
    this Court. Several other writ petitions were also decided following K
    Rangaiah 's case (supra). All the Civil Appeals against those judgments were
    taken up by a Constitution Bench in Civil Appeal Nos.1220-42182 and                 c
    connected matters. This Court did not go into the constitutional issues in view
    of the fact that respondents were small land owners having less than one acre
    of land. Possession has been taken in the lands involved in those appeals on
    different dates between 1980 and 1984. Being of the impression that the
    notifications had lapsed, fresh notifications were issued under Sections 4 and
    6 in 1991. Land Acquisition Officer after due inquiry determined the market         D
    value in accordance with the Nagarjuna Act and the awards were made in
    1992. In February 1997 and thereafter writ petitions were filed questioning
    validity of the actions taken and prayed for direction to determine the market
    value on the date ofnotification in 1991 under Section 4(1) of the Act without
    resorting to Nagarjuna Act. The Division Bench held that subsequent                 E
    notifications were really unnecessary in view of the decision of this Court
    in Allahabad Development Authority and Ors. v. Nasiruzzaman and Ors.,
    [1996] 6 SCC 424. It was held that when possession of the land has been
    taken pursuant to Section 17 of the Act, the provisions of Section 11-A do
     not have any application. Therefore, subsequent notifications were held to
     be of no consequence. After being held so, the High Court remitted the matter      F
    to the Land Acquisition Officer by quashing the awards and directed passing
    of fresh orders.

          Learned counsel for the appellant-State and its functionaries submitted
    that the High Court did not consider the specific plea raised regarding delayed
                                                                                        G
    presentation of writ petition after long passage of time. Furl.lier the writ-
    petitioner had not effectively availed the remedies available under the Act
    and could not have indirectly asked for interference with the awards made
    long prior to the filing of the writ petitions. It was further submitted that the
    undisputed position is that references were pending in terms of Section 18
                                                                                        H
1




T
    516                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   of the Act when writ petitions were filed. That being so, the High Court
    should not have entertained the writ petitions.

         In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this
    Court's order in the earlier matters dated 8th July, 1996 to which reference
    has been made earlier, did not in essence find fault with the reasoning of the
B   High Court in the earlier decision. Further, the Land Acquisition Officer had
    passed the awards in some cases after the impugned judgments of the High
    Court were passed and at this length of time this Court should not interfere.

          We shall first deal with the plea relating to the maintainability of the
    writ petition filed after long passage of time. In a catena of decisions this
c   Court has held that High Court should not entertain writ petitions when there
    is delayed challenge to notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under
    Section 6 of the Act. (See Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, [ 1975]
    4 SCC 285, State of T.N. and Ors. v. L. K;·ishnan and Ors., [1996] I SCC
    250 and Municipal Corporation a/Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development
D   Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., [ 1996] 11 . SCC 50 I.

          The High Court was moved in these matters by writ petitions long after
    Section 4( I) Notification and Section 6 declarations were made. On that
    ground alone the writ petitions should not have been entertained. Additionally,
    the respondents clearly accepted that references in terms of Section 18 were
E   pending. The High Court has not even indicated ar.y reason as to why the
    writ petitions were being entertained when the references in terms of Section
    18 were pending. On that score also the High Court's judgment becomes
    unsustainable.

          We, therefore, set aside the ju9gment of the High Court. The references
F   which were pending and have been closed in view of the impugned judgment
    of the High Court shall be revived. In some of these cases also the fresh
    awards have been passed. They are set aside and the original reference stands
    revived. Only references which were pending on the date of the High Court
    judgment i.e. 14.3.1997 shall stand revived. Other claims and adjudications,
G   if any, pursuant to the High Court'5: impugned order in these cases shall have
    no effect.

          The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

    S.K.S.                                                       Appeals allowed.