IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 15566 of 2001 Between: M.Venkata Rao S/o.late Sanyasayya Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (LA), VUDA and LAO, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the entire land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of Ac.0.66 cts in S.No.1502/20 (TS.No.1502/3) of Bheemunipatnam village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist as per the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act published on 01.06.1984 and the declaration under sec. 6 of the Act published in A.P.Gazette dt.22/5/2001 as per Rc.No.124/2001 as dt.22/5/2001 of the 1st respondent as illegtal, null and void and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings with regard to the acquisition of the land as mentioned above and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.15566 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner is owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.66 in survey No.1502/20 situated at Bheemunipatnam Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Respondents proposed to acquire land for Integrated Urban Development Project (I.U.D.P.) scheme taken up by Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA). Initially notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, for brevity) was issued on 10.01.1982, which could not go on and accordingly fresh notification was issued on 16.01.1984 and declaration under Section 6 of LA Act was also issued. Petitioner filed W.P.No.6287 of 1986 alleging that no declaration under Section 6 of LA Act was made within stipulated time and therefore, notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act became void. By an order dated 07.12.1987 this Court allowed said writ petition quashing the declaration under Section 6 of LA Act. First respondent again issued notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act on 02.03.1990 followed by declaration under Section 6 of LA Act on 06.03.1990. Petitioner again challenged the same in W.P.No.304 of 1991. In said writ petition, petitioner contended that though enquiry was conducted under Section 5-A of LA Act, it was not done properly and that various contentions raised by him were not considered. This Court allowed said writ petition on 20.09.1999 and remanded the matter to second respondent with a direction to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of LA Act afresh. In obedience thereto second respondent conducted enquiry on 12.01.2000 and issued declaration under Section 6 of LA Act on 22.05.2001. Assailing the same instant writ petition is filed. First respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit. Second respondent filed counter-affidavit opposing writ petition. It is stated that land was proposed to be acquired for sites and services under Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town (IDSMT) scheme for VUDA. An enquiry was conducted before issuing declaration. The contentions raised by petitioner were rejected and declaration was issued. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu[1] and recent judgment of Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana[2] in support of the contention that when declaration under Section 6 of LA Act is quashed a fresh declaration can be issued only within a year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act and any declaration issued beyond period of one year would be void. In Padmasundara Rao (supra) five learned Judges of Supreme Court considered the correctness of the decision of three Judge Bench in N. Narsimhaiah v. State of Karnataka[3], which judgment was found to be in conflict with an unreported judgment of three Judge Bench in A.S. Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu[4]. After considering the law, in Padmasundara Rao (supra), it was held that view in Narsimhaiah (supra) was not correct and view expressed in A.S. Naidu (supra) was confirmed. The relevant observations in this regard are as follows. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in A. S. Naidu and others etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others etc., (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11353- 11355/1988), wherein a Bench of three-Judges held that once a declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been quashed, fresh declaration under Section 6 cannot be issued beyond the prescribed period of the Notification and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. It has to be noted that there is another judgment of two learned Judges in Oxford English School v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others (1995 (5) SCC 206) which takes a view similar to that expressed in A. S. Naidu's case (supra). However, in State of Karnataka and others v. D. C. Nanjudaiah and others [(1996) (10) SCC 619], view in Narasimhaiah's case (supra) was followed and it was held that the limitation of 3 years for publication of declaration would start running from the date of receipt of the order of the High Court and not from the date on which the original publication under Section 4(1) came to be made. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana[5] (supra) reiterating that declaration under Section 6 of LA Act made after one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act will be void, Supreme Court observed as below. Proviso (ii) appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act clearly debars making of any declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification issued under sub- section (1) of Section 4 after the expiry of one year from the date of publication thereof. Explanation (1) appended to the said proviso, however, stipulates that in computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1), is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded. On a plain reading of the aforementioned provisions, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the period which is required to be excluded would be one, during which the action or proceeding taken was subjected to any order of stay passed by a competent court of law. We have noticed hereinbefore that the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6 is in the negative term. It is, therefore, mandatory in nature. Any declaration made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 would be void and of no effect. An enabling provision has been made by reason of the explanation appended thereto, but the same was done only for the purpose of extending the period of limitation and not for any other purpose. The purport and object of the provisions of the Act and in particular the proviso which had been inserted by Act 68 of 1984 and which came into force w.e.f. 24.09.1984 must be given its full effect. The said provision was inserted for the benefit of the owners of land. Such a statutory benefit, thus, cannot be taken away by a purported construction of an order of a court which, in our opinion, is absolutely clear and explicit. Legal position as such is not seriously disputed. Therefore, when notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act was issued on 02.03.1990, issuing of declaration on 22.05.2001 is certainly illegal. As at this point of time even an award cannot be passed, notification under Section 4(1) of LA Act must also go. Accordingly both notification dated 02.03.1990 and declaration dated 22.05.2001 are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25th February, 2008 GHN To 1 The Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (LA), VUDA and LAO, Visakhapatnam. 3. 2CCs to GP for Land Acquisition 4. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VEENA} [1] 2002 (3) ALT 27 (SC) = AIR 2002 SC 1334 [2] AIR 2007 SC 1411 [3] (1996) 3 SCC 88 [4] S.L.P.(c) Nos.11353-11355 of 1988 [5] AIR 2007 SC 1411