Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 475 (AP)

Vinoda v. Government of A. P.

2011-06-29

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
ORDER: 1. This petition is filed with a prayer to review the order, dated 04.06.2010 in W.P.No.10844 of 2007. The respondents in the writ petition are petitioners herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. 2. The lands of the writ petitioners admeasuring about Acs.30.00 were notified for acquisition on 05.03.2005, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was published on 16.04.2005. The petitioners filed W.P.No.9879 of 2005 challenging the notification. That writ petition was disposed of, on 25.11.2005, setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and directing that the respondents shall conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 3. The respondents issued a notice dated 15.05.2007 proposing to conduct the enquiry. W.P.No.10844 of 2007 was filed challenging the same. The principal contention of the petitioners was that the period stipulated under the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act, namely one year from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, had expired and that it is not permissible for the respondents to take any further steps, for the purpose of issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The said writ petition was allowed on finding that the period stipulated under proviso to Section 6 of the Act, had expired. 4. In this review petition, it is urged that W.P.No.10844 of 2007 is one of the matters in a batch of writ petitions and when a Division Bench of this Court dismissed, many other writ petitions, the petitioners therein approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.No.25214 of 2005 and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order of status quo. Taking shelter under this, the respondents contend that it is still open to them to take steps for publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is stated that during the pendency of the S.L.P., an order of status quo was in force and even while disposing of the same on 13.03.2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. According to the respondents, though the petitioners herein are not parties to those proceedings, the order of status quo would apply to their case also, since the land was covered by the same notification. 5. According to the respondents, though the petitioners herein are not parties to those proceedings, the order of status quo would apply to their case also, since the land was covered by the same notification. 5. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents and Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. 6. In W.P.No.9879 of 2005, a Division Bench of this Court has set aside the declaration dated 16.04.2005, published under Section 6 of the Act, in so far as it was in relation to the land of the petitioners. The respondents did not file any S.L.P. against the said order. It was rather incidental that certain other writ petitions filed challenging the same notification, were dismissed by the Division Bench and that the petitioners therein filed S.L.P. It needs to be noted that no notification was set aside through the order, which was the subject matter of S.L.P., much less there existed any necessity for the respondents to publish any further notifications. Proviso Nos. 1 and 2 of Section 6 of the Act come into operation, only when the necessity arises or exists for publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. When the very challenge in the S.L.P. was to the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act, one just cannot think of applying the second proviso to that section. Further, the order of status quo granted by the Supreme Court either as an interim measure or as part of the final order, was only in relation to the possession over the land, that between the parties thereto. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the pendency of the S.L.P. or the direction issued therein, can come to the rescue of the respondents, to press into service the second proviso to Section 6 of the Act, vis-à-vis the land of the petitioners. 7. Another important aspect is that even the respondents did not feel any handicap or hindrance to proceed further on account of the pendency of S.L.P., or the disposal thereof. Though the S.L.P. was pending, and notwithstanding the interim order passed therein, the respondents issued notice, dated 15.05.2007, proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, vis-à-vis the land of the petitioners. The plea now raised by them is self-contradictory. Though the S.L.P. was pending, and notwithstanding the interim order passed therein, the respondents issued notice, dated 15.05.2007, proposing to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, vis-à-vis the land of the petitioners. The plea now raised by them is self-contradictory. The respondents cannot choose to commence the proceedings or to stop them at their whims and selectively take shelter under the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. The third aspect is that the second proviso to Section 6 of the Act operates, only when proceedings are pending, before any Court of law and any interim order is passed therein. Even if the widest possible interpretation is to be placed upon it, the proviso would operate only so long as the proceedings are pending. Once they terminate in one way or the other, no one can take shelter under it, irrespective of the nature of the order. Admittedly, the S.L.P. was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.03.2008. By the time the writ petition was allowed, the period of one year prescribed under first proviso, expired from the date of the order in the S.L.P., also. 9. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to review the order dated 04.06.2010 passed in W.P.No.10844 of 2007, and the Rev.W.P.M.P. is accordingly dismissed.