The petitioners are the owners of an extent of Acs.10.10 guntas of land in survey Nos.362, 366, 373 and 374 of Manchirevula Village, Rejendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They submitted applications to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (for short, the Authority), with a request to regularize the layout, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.902, dated 31-12-2007. It was pleaded that the land was divided into plots in anticipation of the layout and that they are entitled for the benefit provided for under the said G.O. Requisite amounts were remitted. Through letters of different dates, the authority returned the applications, on the ground that the land is under acquisition by the State Government. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same.

2. The petitioners contend that an extent of Acs.10.10 guntas of land in survey Nos. 363, 366, 373 and 374 of Manchirevula Village was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of establishing a Commando Training Centre for Gray Hounds and that notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act), were published on 23-2-2004 and 8-3-2004, respectively. According to them, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was set aside by this Court, through its order, dated 6-9-2005 in W.P.No. 20462 of• 2004, in respect of part of the said land and that the same was followed in W.P.No. 10872 of 2005, filed as regards the other part of the land. They submit that though enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted, the Government did not publish notification under Section 6 of the Act and in view of lapse of time and by operation of proviso to Section 6 of the Act, the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, which covers facts of almost all the cases. The publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.20462 of 2004 and 10872 of 2005 are mentioned. According to them, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and that the proposals for publication of draft declaration under Section 6 are pending with the Government for approval. The 2nd respondent contends that the possession of the land was taken on 16-4-2005, by invoking the urgency clause, under Section 17(1) of the Act, and that once the land has vested in the Government, the petitioners cannot seek regularization of the layout, as provided for under G.O.Ms. No.902, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 31-12-2007.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the ground, on which, their applications were rejected, is untenable and non-existent in law. They contend that once the invocation of urgency clause of the respondents was found fault with by this Court and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is set aside, possession of the land taken by invoking urgency clause, cannot be sustained. It is also pleaded that the vesting of land in the Government by operation of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act would only relieve the rigour under Section 11-A of the Act, in the context of passing an award within a stipulated time, but not the basic requirement, as to existence of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, that was ordered by this Court has been completed and that the proposals for approval and publication of the declaration are pending with the Government. Placing reliance upon certain precedents, he submits that once the land is vested in the Government by operation of Section 17(1) of the Act, the petitioners cannot claim any rights in respect of that. According to him, the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, which requires publication of a declaration within one year from the date of publication of notification under 4(1), does not apply to cases where the possession of the land was taken