http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3274-75 of 2003

PETITIONER: Govt. of A.P. and Ors.                                   

RESPONDENT: Kollutla OBI Reddy and Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/2005

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & H.K. SEMA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [With C.A. Nos.3076/2003, 3080/2003, 3088/2003, 3090/2003,  3093/2003, 3094/2003, 3096/2003, 3101/2003, 3280-3294/2003,  3323-3341/2003 and 3614/2005).

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’) 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 suffice.

       In 1956 Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands)  Act, 1956 (in short the ’Nagarjuna Act’) was enacted.  Under  the said Act Sections 11 and 23 of the Act were amended. In  1979 writ petition was filed by one K. Rangaiah and others  questioning constitutional validity of Nagarjuna 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 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.1220-42/82 and  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 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 of notification in 1991 under  Section 4(1) of the Act without resorting to Nagarjuna Act.  The Division Bench held that subsequent notifications were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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 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 presentation of  writ petition after long passage of time.  Further 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 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 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 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. 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).

       The High Court was moved in these matters by writ  petitions long after Section 4(1) 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 pending. The High Court has not even  indicated any 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 judgment of the High  Court. The references 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, if any,  pursuant to the High Court’s impugned order in these cases  shall have no effect.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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