33 years have elapsed, ever since the litigation between the petitioner and the respondents started, in the context of acquisition of about two acres of land in T.S.No.83/1, Waltair, owned by the petitioner. The pendulum swung on both the directions, and is yet to come to rest.

A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, on 20-03-1978, proposing to acquire the said land for establishing a Zonal Centre for the then Town Planning Trust, Visakhapatnam. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 06-05-1980.

The petitioner filed W.P.No.3535 of 1988, challenging the acquisition proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed and the order of dismissal was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, and thereafter, by the Supreme Court. Petitioner has chosen to address the conscience of the Government and to impress upon it, to withdraw the notification. Even while the representation made by the petitioner was pending, an award was passed on 20-02-1982, determining the compensation at Rs.7,82,612.56 ps., and the amount was deposited in a Civil Court. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 25-02-1982, directing that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 20-03-1978 be withdrawn. By that time, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, the 3rd respondent herein, was constituted under the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, and the activities of the Town Planning Trust, for whose benefit the land was acquired; were brought under its control.

At the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.714, dated 11-11-1983, withdrawing the notification in G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 25-02-1982. It is stated that possession of the land was taken on 03-12-1983. Feeling aggrieved by the G.O.Ms.No.714, dated 11-11-1983, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11326 of 1983 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed on 25-04-1984, mainly on the ground that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. The same was affirmed in Division Bench, in W.A.No.1081 of 1984. The result was that the Government was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing the petitioner. This time, the Government leaned in favour of the petitioner and issued G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 27-02-1990, directing withdrawal of acquisition.

The third somersault took place on 30-04-1998, when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.222, cancelling its order in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 27-02-1990. For the third time, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14818 of 1998. The writ petition was allowed. Simultaneously, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6300 of 1999, seeking restoration of possession of the land. Both the writ petitions are allowed. The 3rd respondent filed two Writ Appeals, being W.A.Nos.2312 of 1998 and 1074 of 1999. The writ appeals were dismissed on 27-02-2002. The 3rd respondent carried the matter to the Supreme Court, in C.A.Nos.1665 and 1666 of 2004. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the civil appeals; set aside the judgments rendered by this Court in the writ petitions and writ appeals, and directed the Government to take a decision, whether or not to cancel G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 27-02-1990. Almost as a logical extension of its past conduct, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.314, Municipal Administration, dated 18-05-2009, directing that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act be withdrawn, in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act. Going a step further, it directed the 3rd respondent to handover the possession of the property to the petitioner. As a ministerial act, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent initiated steps for withdrawal.

The petitioner states that, when the formal notification under Section 48(1) of the Act was about to be issued, in compliance with the orders in G.O.Ms.No.314, dated 18-05-2009,