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. 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 petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document