Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case has a long history starting from 1972. As many as three notifications have been issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Proceedings were initiated by the Government after a lapse of 13 years to revise the order of the competent authority under the ULC Act.

3. Now, we shall go through the relevant facts and events. The Chairman of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'VPT") sent a requisition letter to the District Collector on 16-8-1972 for acquisition of lands measuring Ac.45.33 cents in S. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Kanehcrlapalem village for the purpose of construction of staff quarters therein. As a prelude to the acquisition, an extent of Ac.18.39 cents, the bulk of which is in S. No.4, was taken possession by the Estate Manager of VPT on 29-8-1972. Late Sri Akulla Suryanurayana Rao, (brother of respondent No.l and father of respondent No.7) on behalf of himself and as agent and GPA of Sri A.V. Papaiah Sastry (first respondent) handed over the lands to the Estate Manager of VPT. In the statement recorded on 29-8-1972, it was made clear that there was a dispute under the A.P. Tenancy Act with the tcnaul by name K. Gurumurthy Reddy. in his further statement dated 18-7-1973, Sri Swyanarayana Rao confirmed that the possession of Ac. 18.39 cents was handed over on 29-8-1972 and expressed no objection for the acquisition. It was also stated therein that there were fruit bearing trees including mango and jack fruit trees on the land. He and his brother Papaiah Sastry claimed exclusive right in the compensation amount. The factum of taking advance possession of the lands from the land owners in S. Nos.3/1. 3/2 and 4 and also in S. No.1/1 and 1/2 was intimated to Revenue authorities on 28-9-1972. It is the case of the writ petitioners that a notification under Section 4(1) was issued for the first time on 10-8-1973. However, there is no proof to this effect. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, came into force in Andhra Pradesh with effect from 17-2-1976. It covered the Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration also. It appears that VPT requested the land owners to get clearance from ULC authorities. The writ petitioners filed declarations and took the stand that the possession of land having been already handed over to VPT before the Act came into force, the land in estion was nothit by the provisions of the ULC Act. On 25-5-1991, the Special Officer, ULC, Visakhapatnam passed an order under Section 8(4) of the Act holding that the declarants are not surplus land holders and the disputed lands should be excluded from their holding. Thereafter, the notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was approved by the Government on 29-8-1981 and the same was published in the Gazette on 1-9-1981. The urgency clause under Section 17(4) was nor invoked. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 19-10-1982. While so, on 22-9-1983, the Government issued a notification withdrawing the land in S. No.1/1, 1/2 from acquisition. There was a protest by the Chairman, VPT. The Collector decided to cancel the withdrawal, but for want of provision in that behalf, such action could not be taken. Coming back to the lands in S. Nos.3/1, 3/2 and 4 with which we are concerned, the Secretary of VPT clarified on 19-12-1985 in reply to a query of the Special Tahsildar (LA) that acutal physical possession was not taken as the tenant did not hand over the lands. However, he stated that the staff of VPT were safeguarding the lands from possible encroachments. In the meanwhile, the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam inspected the lands and approved PV statement for payment of compensation at Rs.25/- per sq. yd. Pursuant thereto, the VPT deposited a sum of Rs.28.92 lakhs towards the estimated compensation amount. The Joint Collector by his communications dated 29-10-1985 and 19-11-1985 instructed the Special Tahsildar to send up proposals for passing the award. However, no award was passed. No steps were taken presumably for the reason that the proceedings lapsed by reason of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act introduced by the Amendment Act of 1984. A fresh notification under Section 4(1) was issued which was published in the Gazette on 11-2-1986, but it related to the lands in S. Nos.1/1 and 1/2 and 2 which were earlier withdrawn from acquisition. Nonotification was issued in the year 1986 covering the lands in question, though, arguments were addressed on the footing that such notification was issued in the year 1986 in relation to the lands with which we are concerned. While the matter stood thus, the VPT's clarification that only paper possession was taken made the Special Tahsildar and the Collector to probe further into this aspect. Accordingly, the collector addressed a letter on 22-9-1986 to the VPT. The Secretary, VPT in his letter dated 23-9-1986 again stated that actual possession was not taken. On 3-2-1987, the Special Officer, ULC wrote to the Commissioner, ULC to address the Government to initiate action under Section 34 of the Act to annul the orders passed by his predecessor excluding the lands in question from the purview of ULC Act. On 12-7-1989, the Estate Officer, VPT addressed the District Collector not to reopen the ULC proceedings as the physical possession was taken from the land holders. Even the Chairman of VPT made a similar request to the Commissioner, ULC requesting the latter to give instructions to pass the award. By that time, as seen from the Government Memo dated 20-7-1994, the Commissioner of ULC already addressed a letter to the Government on 8-12-1988 seeking revision of the orders passed under Section 8(4) of the Act by exercising the powers under Section 34. It was followed by similar communications addressed during the years 1992 and 1993 by the Commissioner, ULC. In the meanwhile, in view of the lapse of the previous notification, a fresh notification was issued on 17-5-1991 under Section 4(1). Urgency clause under Section 17(4) was invoked. On 3-5-1992, declaration under Section 6 was issued. However, no award was passed. At last, on 20-7-1994, the Government decided to exercise suo motu revisional power under Section 34 and issued a show-cause notice proposing to set aside the proceedings dated 25-5-1981 of the competent authority under the ULC Actin CC Nos.6143 of 1976 etc. The first respondent and some others filed objections. The same were overruled and the impugned order dated 20-1-1995 was passed by the Government setting aside the order of the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and directing him to issue revised orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. The objections filed by the wril petitioners were not dealt with at all in the said order. It was merely stated that the Government thought it fit to confirm the provisional conclusion arrived at in the memo dated 20-7-1994. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.3102 of 1995 was filed. The other writ petition seeking a direction to pass the award was filed earlier, after the show-cause notice under Section 34 of the ULC Act, was issued.

4. The Government has given two reasons for annulling the order passed by the competent authority under the ULC Act : (1) though on paper, the possession was taken over in anticipation of Land Acquisition proceedings in August, 1972 with the consent of land holders, the physical possession of the lands was not handed over as per the VPT's letter dated 19-12-1985 addressed to the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam. (2) Even if VPT shall be deemed to be in possession of the lands by the date the ULC Act came into force, still the title remains with the writ petitioners as the land acquisition proceedings were not concluded and therefore they were liable to surrender the excess vacant lands. For these reasons, the Government set aside the orders passed by the Special Officer-cum-competent authority under the ULC Act and he was directed to issue revised orders under Section 8(4) of the Act.

(2) Irrespective of the correctness of the order of the ULC authority whether the Government was justified in exercising its suo motu revisionalpowers under Section 34 of the ULC Act after a lapse of about 13 years?

13. There is much to be said in favour of the view taken by the Government that by the date of commencement of the ULC Act, the landholders did not lose their title to the iand. The mere fact that possession was handed over by the land owners to VPT in the year 1972 does not mean that the land owners were divested of the title to the land, in fact, possession that was delivered to VPT could not be, in the very nature of things, an effective possession inasmuch as the tenant was cultivating the lands. Thus, the ground of exclusion of the land in question from the holding of the declarants (writ petitioners or their predecessors in title) in the course of proceedings under Section 8(4) of ULC Act, does not appear to be a valid ground. However, it is not necessary to enter into an elaborate discussion on this aspect, having regard to the view we are taking on the second aspect of the case, i.e., whether it was vacant land on the relevant date so as to attract the provisions of ULC Act.

(7) In Special Tahsildar's Re. No.2833/ 77/R1-2 dated 26-10-1985 addressed to the Collector, Visakhapatnam, it was clearly written in the tree valuation statement that in S. No.3/1 only 10 Palmyrah trees, in S. No.3/2 only 3 Palmyrah trees and in S. ts'o.4 119 Palmyrah trees, 21 cashew trees, 16 Sapota trees. 8 Soapnut trees, 1 Tamarind tree, 1 Teakwood tree, 34 Date-palm trees and 30 Mango trees were present and they were valued for Rs.13,381/-.

From the above discussion, it appears that the lands in S. No.3/1, 3/2 and 4 of Kancharlapalem were treated as agriculture lands situated in Urban area of Visakhapatnam Municipality on the appointed day. With that view only those lands were initially recommended for exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the ULC Act. But I believe that there is no support of the view that effective cultivation is present in any year in those lands before or after the commencement of the ULC Act in 1976. Fvcn in Revenue records, only horticulture plants like Cashew, Mango, etc., were recorded but not effective agriculture crops like paddy, surgarcane etc. As said earlier, the character of the land is to be determined with reference to its principal use (Section 20(O)(A) of ULC Act). Mere the lands are not put to effective cultivalon but they are used for raising plants like Mango, cashew, etc. As per revenue records, horticulture crops were recorded against almost entire extent of Ac. 18-39 in S. No.3/1, 3/2 and 4. But. mere entry in revenue records is not decisive to determine the use of the land as horticulture.''