B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 21-7-1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in w. P. No. 17622 of 1994. ( 2 ) A land of Acs. 15. 00 cts. covered by survey No. 1/2 of Kancharapalem village, visakhapatnam District was acquired for public purpose i. e. , for construction of staff quarters by the Port Trust and on requisition, acquisition proceedings were initiated and a draft notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was gazetted on 12-10-1982. As no award was passed. W. P. No. 771 of 1990 was filed before this Court seeking a Mandamus to issue directions to pass the award and accordingly, such directions were issued. Against the order of the learned Single judge, Writ Appeal No. 672 of 1994 was filed. But, the Division Bench confirmed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the orders of the Division bench in W. A. No, 672 of 1994, the State had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court in s. L. P. No. 19739 of 1994, but the same was also dismissed. Thus the directions given by the learned. Single Judge in W. P. No. 771 of 1990 to pass the award and to pay the compensation had become final. ( 3 ) BY amendment of Act 68 of 1984, which came into force with effect from 24-9-1984, section 11-A was incorporated in the land Acquisition Act, 1894, obligating the land Acquisition Officer to pass the award within two years of the draft declaration under Section 6 (1) of the said Act, setting the consequences of such default. The consequence is that, the notification under section 4 (1) of the said Act gets lapsed obligating the State to publish fresh notification again under Section 4 (1) and this provision has been made keeping in view the rising prices and to check the arbitrary exercise of power of the government in keeping the matters pending without passing award. ( 4 ) IN view of the fact that no award was passed within two years as contemplated under Section 11-A, a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued in g. O. Rt. ( 4 ) IN view of the fact that no award was passed within two years as contemplated under Section 11-A, a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued in g. O. Rt. No. 246, Transport, Roads and buildings (Ports-2) Department, dated 31-3-1995, but no award has been passed as yet and the respondents remained as they were, without receipt of any amount. ( 5 ) PROMISING to acquire the land and pay compensation, Port Trust has taken the possession in advance on 30-8-1972 and since the said promise was not performed, the above legal proceedings were initiated. As an after-thought, the appellants had started pleading that possession was not taken over by the Port Trust and that the order of the Special Officer and Competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling, visakhapamam passed on 11-1-1980 under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ulc Act ) is not final, as, suo motu, the Government has exercised its revisional powers under Section 34 of ULC act and pursuant to the same, show-cause notice dated 20-7-1994 was issued and that the appellant-State was not liable to pay compensation, as the land is an excess land under ULC Act and that it has to vest in the government and the compensation then payable would be only in accordance with the Schedule under the ULC Act. This was the notice, which was challenged in the writ petition under this appeal and the learned single Judge, after referring to all the above facts and circumstances and particularly in view of the fact that the order passed in w. P. No. 771 of 1990 has become final in which the same allegations viz. , possession was not taken on 30-8-1972 and that the land was covered by the provisions under the ULC Act, were raised and negatived holding that the Special Officer and the revisional Authority under the ULC Act cannot sit in Judgment over the order passed above and that in any event, the revisional powers cannot be exercised after 14 years of passing of the orders by the urban Land Ceiling Authority and accordingly allowed the writ petition quashing the notice. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that there is power for the Government to initiate suo motu revisional proceedings, that they cannot be hauledup at the threshold and that the respondents are obligated to show-cause and the Government is entitled to pass the order after affording opportunity to the respondents. Bone of contention is that even if it is assumed that the possession was taken over in the year 1972, the same was not taken over by the government and the taking over possession by the requisitioning authority cannot amount to taking possession under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and as such, the land did not vest in the government and still continued to be with the respondents and hence, there is no legal embargo for taking over the land under the provisions of ULC Act, subject to the revision being allowed. We cannot agree. The acquisition was at the instance of the requisitioning authority. The requisitioning authority with a promise of getting the proceedings initiated under the Land acquisition Act, 1894 had taken over advance possession in the year 1972, and as such, the land was divested from the holding of the respondents and was not capable of being computed in the holding of the respondents. With the gazetting of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act on 12-10-1982, the promise of the requisitioning authority had crystalized into statutory action and the land was deemed to have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is pertinent to mention that since the requisitioning authority is not the government and cannot acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, it may requisition and the Government after taking possession always makes it over to the requisitioning authority. But, in the instant case, the requisitioning authority felt urgency and took over advance possession and then land acquisition proceedings were initiated as referred to above. In view of the above, Urban Land Ceiling Authority had rightly held that there was no vacant land. If the Government was of the view that the order of the Special Officer and Competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling. Visakhapatnam was erroneous, it ought to have initiated suo motu revision proceedings before 12-10-1982. In view of the above, Urban Land Ceiling Authority had rightly held that there was no vacant land. If the Government was of the view that the order of the Special Officer and Competent authority under Urban Land Ceiling. Visakhapatnam was erroneous, it ought to have initiated suo motu revision proceedings before 12-10-1982. Not only the government did not think fit to initiate suo motu revision proceedings under Section 34 of ULC Act, but it had also faced the earlier round of litigation and was unsuccessful even in the Apex Court and the show-cause notice which was later issued on 20-7-1994 is an affront to the judicial decision and such a conduct on the part of the government cannot be countenanced. What is more, the Government had re-issued the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 in G. O. Rt. No. 246, dated 31-3-1995 and that itself shows that the show-cause notice issued on 20-7-1994 purporting to be under Section 34 of ULC act is a colourable exercise of power. Learned Single Judge has rightly held following the decision of the Supreme court in State of Gujarat vs. P. Raghav that the revisional proceedings cannot be initiated after long lapse of time. We are also of the same view, that by no stretch of imagination, fourteen years can be said to be a reasonable time and that the revisional proceedings are the result of arbitrary exercise of power apart from the fact that it is an affront to the final judicial verdict. ( 7 ) THE Writ Appeal is thus dismissed. No costs.