P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ appeals by the State government (Revenue Department) and by vishakapatnam Port Trust are preferred against two separate judgments of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition no. 3102 of 1995 and W. P. No. 11754 of 1994. Writ Appeal Nos. 109 and 479 of 1997 are preferred against the judgment in Writ petition No. 3102 of 1995 and the remaining two writ appeals arise out of the order in w. P. No. 11754 of 1994. W. P. No. 11754 of 1994 was filed by the respondents 1 to 7 herein who claim to be having right and interest over the land in S. No. 3/1, 3/2 and 4 of Kancherlapalem (extension) village within the municipal limits of vishakapatnam. They sought for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award in pursuance of the notification dated 17-5-1991 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. W. P. No. 3102 of 1995 was filed by the same parties seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the government in G. O. Ms. No. 21 (Revenue uc-1) dt. 20-1-1995. Both the writ petitions were allowed. In W. P. No. 11754 of 1994, the learned single Judge directed a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) to be published and an award to be passed within the prescribed time frame. It may at this stage be pointed out that the relief granted by the learned Judge goes beyond the scope of the writ petition insofar as the learned Judge directed a fresh notification to be issued because the prayer of the writ petitioners is to direct passing of an award on the basis of Section 4 (1) notification dated 17-5-1991. After the writ petition was allowed on 4-6-1996 a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) was issued in compliance with the directions of the learned single Judge, without prejudice to the contentions in the writ appeal. We are informed that such step was taken to avoid action under the Contempt of Courts Act.

( 2 ) THE case has a long history starting from 1971. As many as three notifications have been issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Proceedings were initiated by the Government after a lapse of 13 years to revise the order of the competent authority under the ULC Act.

( 3 ) NOW, we shall go through the relevant facts and events. The Chairman of the vishakapatnam Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as vpr ) sent a requisition letter to the District Collector on 16-8-1972 for acquisition of lands measuring Ac. 45. 33 cents in S. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of kancherlapalem village for the purpose of construction of staff quarters therein. As a prelude to the acquisition, an extent of Ac. 18. 39 cents, the bulk of which is in S. No. 4, was taken possession by the Estate Manager of VPT on 29-8-1972. Late Sri Akula suryanarayana Rao, (brother of Respondent no. 1 and father of respondent No. 7) on behalf of himself and as agent and G. P. A. of sri A. V. Papaiah Sastry (first respondent) handed over the lands to the Estate manager of VPT. In the statement recorded on 29-8-1972, it was made clear that there was a dispute under the A. P. Tenancy Act with the tenant by name K. Gurumurthy reddy. In his further statement dated 18-7-1973, Sri Suryanarayana Rao confirmed that the possession of Ac. 18. 39 cents was handed over on 29-8-1972 and expressed no objection for the acquisition. It was also stated therein that there were fruit bearing trees including mango and jack fruit trees on the land. He and his brother papaiah Sastry claimed exclusive right in the compensation amount. The factum of taking advance possession of the lands from the land owners in S. Nos. 3/1, 3/2 and 4 and also in S. No. 1/1 and 1/2 was intimated to Revenue authorities on 28-9-1972. It is the case of the writ petitioners that a notification under section 4 (1) was issued for the first time on 10-8-1973. However, there is no proof to this effect. The Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act came into force in Andhra pradesh with effect from 17-2-1976. It covered the Vishakapatnam Urban agglom

Click Here to Read the rest of this document