DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to call for the records connected with the G. O. Rt. No. 770, panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PRDGS. IV) Department, dated 10-5-2002 and the Declaration in Government Memo no. 3682/2001-18 P. R. and R. D. (Prog. IV/a2) Department dated 10-5-2002 passed by the Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, hyderabad.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition originally came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this court. Before the learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar) a decision of another learned Single Judge (Ms. Justice s. V. Maruthi) of this court reported in coverdhanlal Pitti v. The State of A. P. was cited. In the said decision the learned Single judge held that exercise of power under the land Acquisition Act, to defeat the decree of a Civil Court would be an act vitiated by malice in law. Differing with the above decision, a reference was made by the learned Single Judge to a Division Bench. Accordingly this writ petition came up for hearing before this court as per the directions of the Hon ble the Chief Justice.

( 3 ) THE writ petitioner was the absolute owner of the land comprising of Ac. 1-21 cents of land in Sy. No. 728 of Nuzvid village and Mandal. Admittedly long back permissive possession was given to the respondents for use and occupation of the said property. Zilla Parishad constructed some buildings also in the said property. The buildings are used for Zilla Parishad offices, guest house, godowns, garages for parking vehicles, etc. The petitioner filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 7 of 1980 on the file of senior Civil Judge at Gudivada, for declaration of her title and for vacant possession of the said property by evicting the defendants. Zilla Parishad contested the suit claiming title by adverse possession also. Later the suit was transferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nuzvid and renumbered as O. S. No. 30 of 1984. The district Collector and other Government officers are parties to the said civil suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. It was confirmed by a learned Single Judge of this court in appeal and later in lpa. No. 216 of 2000 on the file of this court. The Government preferred Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court. It was dismissed on 16-3-2001. Later the government issued a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G. O. Rt. No. 770, dated 10-5-2002 of panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PRDGS - IV) Department. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also published by the Government in government Memo No. 3682/2001 -18, panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Prog. IVA2) Department, dated 10-5-1992. Award was also passed by Land Acquisition officer. It appears that a reference to a civil court was made regarding quantum of compensation. As per the notifications the acquired property is needed for a public purpose and to safeguard the Zilla Parishad, krishna and properties of Nuzvid Mandal. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that to nullify the decrees of the Civil Court, those two notifications were given by the state, it is colourable and mala fide exercise of power and those notifications are liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) BEFORE considering the above aspect, it is necessary to consider the decision of this court reported in Goverdhanlal Pitti v. The state of A. P. (supra ). In that case the landlord leased out a building to the government for the purpose of establishing a School in 1954. Later the landlord initiated eviction proceedings before the Rent controller against the Government. The rent Controller granted eviction orders. The government had to vacate the building and hand over the possession on or before 30-4-1989. Instead of handing over the possession of the building in compliance with the orders of the Court, the government invoked the provisions of the land Acquisition Act and issued notification

Click Here to Read the rest of this document