A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) VARIOUS allegations have been made in this batch of writ petitions, challenging the validity of the acquisition of the land comprising 8 acres and by the Government at the instance of Visakhapatnam Urban Development authority for the purpose of L. A. D. Scheme in respect of tourism development at Visakhapatanam. However, it is needless to adjudicate on all the points because one of the grounds is that when there is an earlier notification in respect of the same land for acquisition, the second notification for the same purpose and in respect of the same land cannot be notified unless the earlier one is withdrawn within the meaning of Section 48 of the land ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 or earlier one is cancelled within the meaning of Ssc. 21 of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897. The relevant facts in brief are:

( 2 ) THE first notification was published under Section 4 (1) on 5-1-1981. The 5-A enquiry was conducted thereafter and evidently Section 6 declaration was made on 4-7-1983. Thereafter Section 9 (3) and Section 10 notices were given on 5-12-1983. Then second notification under Section 4 (1) for the same purpose in respect of the same land has been published o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document