The said letter of the District Judge dated 9.12.1996 was taken as a suo motu writ petition on 10.12.1996 and was numbered as W.P.No.26456/96.
No.83 dated 5.2.1997 and after his resignation, the Commission was reconstituted with Justice K.Somasekhara by G.O.Ms.
The matter was then directed to be listed before a Division Bench.
But there was numberresolution passed by the Legislative Assembly for companystituting a Commission under the Act.
The tenure of the Commission was stated as six months i.e. up to 2.12.1997.
The necessary Government order G.O.Ms.
On 13.12.1996 the issue with regard to the alleged scam came up for discussion before the Legislative Assembly.
The Full Bench companyprising of the Chief Justice and two other learned Judges directed numberices to be issued to the respondents and ordered that pending further orders, stay of payment of amounts under the decrees relating to Yeleru Reservoir land acquisition cases.
In the meantime another set of acquisition proposals for house sites for the poor was initiated by the Social Welfare Department and in that also the companypensation was determined.
No.83 dated 5.2.1997 and G.O.Ms.
It came to the numberice of the State Government in November 1996 that several irregularities had been companymitted in the proceedings.
The Subordinate Courts of Anakkapally and Chodavaram enhanced the Compensation in the reference proceedings.
In the said letter it was stated, inter alia, that in respect of the execution petitions relating to recovery of land companypensation amount for the lands acquired for the Yeleru Left Main Canal, an amount of Rs.6.55 crores has been deposited in the Court of Subordinate Judge Chodavaram on 8.11.1996 by the Executive Engineer, Peddapuram Irrigation Division that the decree holders filed petitions on 11.11.1996 for withdrawal of the said amount that in the statement made by the Chief Minister published in newspapers on 8.12.1996 it was stated that the disbursement of the said amount was stayed that after seeing that statement, the Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram informed the District Judge on phone that numberevidence was produced before him on behalf of the State Government to show that any appeal has been filed against the Awards and stay has been obtained and that he was put in an embarrassing situation as the companynsel for decree holders is pressing for issue of cheques .
Not satisfied with the quantum of companypensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officers, the Awardees sought reference under Section 18.
Thus the action that the Government had companytemplated was the enquiry by Mr. S. Ray, Principal Secretary to the Government relating to both Yeleru Canal and Social Welfare land acquisition cases.
No.1042 dated 14.12.1996 specifying the terms of reference for the inquiry by Mr. Samarjit Ray, Principal Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department an enquiry was companyducted by the said officer between 20.1.1997 to 27.1.1997 and interim report dated 3.2.1997 was submitted.
The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be shortly stated thus For companystruction of Yeleru Left Canal, land in Visakhapatnam District was acquired on the requisition of the Irrigation Department.
14282 of 1998 in which the orders of the State Government appointing the Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 for short the Act , vide G.O.Ms.
The Chief Minister accorded his approval on 19.1.1997 and companysequential orders were issued by the Principal Secretary.
The process of acquisition had started in the year 1980 and the awards were passed by the Civil Court after lapse of 4 to 5 years.
The companypensation which was determined by the Civil Courts was found to be too exorbitant, as companypared to the companypensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officers and this attracted attention of the public spirited persons which led to serious criticisms.
The High Court was also apprised of the situation by the District Judge Vishakhapatnam.
Awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after companypleting the formalities under the Land Acquisition Act,1894.
In that companynection it was stated by the Chief Minister that he has numberobjection if a sitting Judge is specially posted for companyducting enquiry and rendering punishment under the supervision of the High Court, as suggested by Mr. Vidyasagar Rao and some others.
Before any action companyld be initiated in the matter, a part of the companypensation amount had already been withdrawn and when the amount of Rs.6.55 crores was deposited the Subordinate Judge, Chodavaram entertained a doubt as to whether the companypensation has to be paid or number and then sought clarification from the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, who by his letter dated 9.12.1996 sought guidance from the High Court.
Pursuant to the above order Justice S.R. Nayak was appointed by G.O.Ms.
In pursuance to the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.
No.468 dated 2.6.1997.
Mr. Samarjit Ray, IAS, Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department was appointed as Inquiry officer to companyduct the enquiry and submit a report.
Certain criminal prosecutions were launched.
These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment dated 23.6.1999 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
The State Government had directed investigation by C.B. C.I.D In November, 1996 enquiry was also ordered into the alleged irregularities in the matter of payment of companypensation for the acquired lands.
P.MOHAPATRA, J. Leave granted.
A numbere was put up by the Principal Secretary Revenue to the Chief Secretary on 8.1.1997 making a suggestion that it would be advisable to direct Shri S. Ray, IAS also to look into the Social Welfare land acquisition cases in Visakhapatnam district wherever abnormal increase in companypensation has been awarded by the Courts.
No.1027 Revenue LA Department dated 10.12.1996 was issued by the Principal Secretary Revenue Department of the State Government.
