GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. versus KOLLUTLA OBI REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 10-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. 
V. 
KOLLUTLA OBI REDDY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 10, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, I894; Sections 4(1), 6, I7 and I8/Nagarjuna 
Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, I956; Sections 11 and 231 
Constitution of India, I950; Article 3I-A : 
Issuance of Notification for acquisition of lands-Amendment of 
Nagarjuna Act-Issuance of fresh Notifications for acquisition and 
determination of market value in accordance with the amended Act-
Award-Challenge ta--Quashed by High Court holding that issuance of 
subsequent Notification unnecessary-On appeal, Held : Issuance of fresh 
Notifications challenged belatedly-Since Reference Petition in terms of 
Section I8 of I894 Act pending/or adjudication, judgment of the High Coi;rt 
unsustainable-References pending/closed by the High Court stands revived 
The constitutional validity of the Nagarjuna Sagar Project 
(Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 was challenged before the High Court 
of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court held that the amendment to Section 
23(1) of the Nagarjuna Act is violative of the Second proviso to Article 
31-A of the Constitution of India so far as it relates to acquisition of land 
within the ceiling limit and is under personal cultivation. Correctness of 
the judgment of High Court was challenged before this Court. In the 
meantime, possession of the lands in disputes in these appeal has been 
taken over by the authorities, but a fresh Notification was issued under 
Sections 4 and 6 of. the 1894 Act and market value of the land so 
acquisitioned was determined in accordance with the amended provisions 
ofNagarjuna Act. Respondents-land owners challenged the actions of the 
authorities concerned in determining afresh the market value of the lands 
in question. High Court remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition 
Officer for passing fresh awards Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : The High Court was moved in these matters by writ H 
513 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
petitioners long after issuance of the Notification under Section 4(1) and 
declarations were made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894. On that ground alone the writ petitions should not have been 
entertained. Additionally, the respondents clearly accepted that references 
in terms of Section 18 of the 1894 Act were pending. The High Court has 
B 
c 
not even indicated any reason as to why the writ petitions were being 
entertained when the references in terms of Section 18 of the 1894 Act 
were pending. On that score also the High Court's judgment becomes 
unsustainable. Hence, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The 
reference which were pending and have been closed in view of the impugned 
judgment of the High Court shall be revived. (516-D-F] 
Ajlatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285; State 
ofT.N and Ors. v. L. Krishnan and Ors., [1996] 1 SCC 250 and Municipal 
Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. 
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., [1996] 11 SCC 501, relied on. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3274-3475 
E 
F 
G 
of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.97 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. No. 4712 and 4725 of 1997. 
Gopal Subhramananyan, Manoj Saxena, Amit Meharia, Debojit Borkakati 
and Mohanprasad Meharia for the Appellants. 
S.S.S. Reddy, Mrs. Kavitha R., Mrs. S. Usha Reddy and Mrs. D. 
Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. : In these appeals challenge is to the judgment 
of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the 
orders/awards made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') 
and directing Land Acquisition Officer to pass fresh awards keeping in view 
the observations made in the judgment. 
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffic1..:. 
In 1956 Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act, 1956 (in 
H 
short the 'Nagarjuna Act') was enacted. Under the said Act Sections 11 and 
1 
T 
GOVT. OF A.P. v. K.O. REDDY [PASAYAT, J.] 
515 
23 of the Act were amended. In 1979 writ petition was filed by one K. 
Rangaiah and others questioning constitutional validity ofNagarjuna Act. A 
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated 
31.8.1979 in writ petition No.2110/79 (K. Rangaiah v. State of A.P., AIR 
(1980) A.P. 165) held t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.