JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the A P amendment 22 of 1976 to Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which removed the three years statutory period for issue of the declaration under Section 6 from the date of notification under section 4 (1), is superceded by Central amendment to Section 6 by Act 68 of 1984 which prescribes statutory period of one year. It has also become necessary to resolve the conflict between the decision of Seetharam Reddy, J in kammari Brahmaiah vs District Collector, maheboobnagar (1) W P 6503/82 dated 13-3-86 which is in favour of such supercession and the decision of Upendralal waghray, J in Vishnubhotla Kasi viswanadham vs District Collector, Guntur (2) W P 5919/81 dated 13-8-85 which is against such supercession.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating the above question, it is necessary to state the following facts With the object of acquiring land for construction of houses for Harijans and Weaker Sections, a notification was issued on 12-12-75 under Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land acquisition Act in the Hyderabad Gazette by the District Collector, Hyderabad. Questioning the said simultaneous publication of notifications, an earlier writ petition was filed as W P No 78/76 by some of the persons whose lands were notified in the same notification. That writ was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29-3-76. Admittedly, possession of the lands had not been taken for considerable time notwithstanding the fact that the earlier writ petition was dismissed as stated above. As the possession of the land was not taken for considerable time and no enquiry under sec. 5-A of the Act was made, the present writ petitioners (who were not parties to the earlier writ petition) challenged the notification by filing this writ petition on 11-8-82 as W P 5470/82. It was pointed out in the writ petition that the writ petitioner had obtained exemption from the Government in G O Rt No 1073 dt 28-4-75 under S. 7 (2) of the AP vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of the Alienation) Act. 1972 and that, thereafter, the original owner executed nine sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and others between 29-5-75 and 4-6-75 each plot being of an extent of 500 Sq. yards. It may be noted that the land is situated in S Nos 140 and 141 of Lungar house village, Golkonda Taluk which for all practical purposes, is not only very close but almost part and parcel of the old city of Hyderabad. In the above said writ petition various points have been taken by the Writ petitioners in support of their contention that an enquiry under Sec 5-A of the Act is to be directed. The writ petition was dismissed.

( 3 ) IN this writ appeal, having regard to the provisions of A P Amendment 9 of 1983, there is no dispute that an enquiry under Sec 5-A is to be ordered and that the declaration under Section 6 is liable to be quashed. This is because of the fact that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 are simultaneous and also because of the fact that possession of the property was not taken over by the authorities within the time stipulated by the said A P Act 1983. By virtue of the very mandate of the A P Act 9 of 1983 which has been held by the Supreme court to be retrospective, an enquiry under Section 5-A has necessarily to be ordered. The question has incidentally arisen whether inasmuch as the notification under Sec 4 (1) was published on 12-12-75, a fresh declaration under Section 6 can be directed to be made at any time under A P Act 22 of 1976 (as applied to acquisition for the poor) or whether the said declaration under Section 6 should have been made within three years from the date of notification under Section 4 in view of part (i) of the first proviso to S. 6 (1) added by the Central Act 68 of 1984. The question also arises whether inasmuch as the publication within three years is now not possible, the notification under section 4 (1) should itself b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document