1996 Supreme(AP) 406

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK
A.V.Papayya Sastry - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., rep.by Us Secretary, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-04-96

When once the lands are taken possession, the property vests with the fourth respondent. Once the property vests with the Government, it is not open to the government to say that it is entitled to issue withdrawal proceedings u/ s 48 of the L. A. Act.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - TAKING POSSESSION - VESTING OF LANDS - WITHDRAWAL OF PROCEEDINGS - U. L. C. ACT - REOPENING OF ISSUE - RELIEF - COMPENSATION - A. P. VACANT LAND IN URBAN AREAS (PROHIBITION OF ALIENATION) ACT 12 OF 1972 - EFFECT - EMERGENCY PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 17 OF THE ACT - LAPSE OF PROCEEDINGS - FRESH NOTIFICATION - AWARD - PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION - TIME FRAME.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought a mandamus directing the respondents to pass an award in pursuance of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 17-5-1991. The lands were taken possession by the fourth respondent authority in the year 1972 itself. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the competent authority by issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short L. A. Act ) on 29-8-1981 through G. O. Rtno. 760, which was also published in the A. P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary on24-9-1981. The petitioners have not received any compensation so far and therefore, are before this Court seeking appropriate direction.

Finding of the Court:

1. Taking possession of land by the fourth respondent authority pursuant to a consent reached between the first petitioner and his brother late Suryanarayana Rao on 28-8-1972 amounts to vesting of lands in the hands of the authorities. 2. It is not open to the land acquisition authorities to deny the compensation to the petitioners in the guise of threat of issuance of notification under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The first respondent is not competent to reopen the issue under section 34 of the U. L. C. Act on the order passed by the third respondent - competent authority under U. L. C. Act in the year 1981 holding that the lands which are taken possession by the fourth respondent authority in the year 1972 does not attract the provisions of Urban Land ceiling Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the taking possession of land by the fourth respondent authority pursuant to a consent reached between the first petitioner and his brother late Suryanarayana Rao on 28-8-1972 amounts to vesting of lands in the hands of the authorities? If so, whether it is open to the land acquisition authorities to deny the compensation to the petitioners in the guise of threat of issuance of notification under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act ? 2. Whether the first respondent is competent to reopen the issue under section 34 of the U. L. C. Act on the order passed by the third respondent - competent authority under U. L. C. Act in the year 1981 holding that the lands which are taken possession by the fourth respondent authority in the year 1972 does not attract the provisions of Urban Land ceiling Act ?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. When once the lands are taken possession, the property vests with the fourth respondent. Once the property vests with the Government, it is not open to the government to say that it is entitled to issue withdrawal proceedings u/ s 48 of the L. A. Act. 2. The intention of the respondents to say that the lands in question have not been taken possession actually and are entitled to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings by issuing notice under section 48 of the Act, the law is well settled in so far as this aspect is concerned. When once the lands are taken possession, the property vests with the fourth respondent. Once the property vests with the Government, it is not open to the government to say that it is entitled to issue withdrawal proceedings u/ s 48 of the L. A. Act. 3. When once the possession of the land is taken, it is not open to the Government to say that it is only paper possession and it is not further open to the authorities to seek recourse to with drawing the land acquisition proceedings by issuing notification under Section 48 of the Act. When once the lands in question are taken possession while invoking the provisions u/s 17 of the Act, such lands vest with the Government and the notification cannot be cancelled by whatever means.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed as indicated above, with costs of rs, 5,000/ -. The fourth and fifth respondents shall pay costs of Rs. 3,000/- and rs. 2,000/- respectively to these petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.