The Central Government, however, in exercise of its power companyferred upon it under Section 9 of the said Act directed that the said undertakings shall, instead of companytinuing to vest in the Central Government, vest in Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd., a Govt.
Caltex Oil Refining India Ltd. was later on amalgamated with the Appellant herein in terms of Sub section 3 of Section 7 of the said Act.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petition has been allowed.
On or about 30.12.1976, the Caltex Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex India Limited Ordinance, 1976 which was replealed and replaced by the Caltex Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex India Limited Act, 1977 was promulgated whereby and whereunder right, title and interest of Caltex India Ltd. in relation to its undertakings in India stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government.
On or about 24.12.1974, another deed of lease was executed by the mother of the Respondent No.
737 of 1985.
An appeal thereagainst was filed before this Court marked as Civil Appeal No.
An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed.
16012 of 1989.
Upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents, the Collector is said to have companyducted an enquiry and submitted his Report to the Government on or about 28.8.1989.
The said suit for eviction was decreed.
An affidavit affirmed by one Shri K.V. Rao was filed on 7th November, 2003 stating that the records were number readily traceable in view of shifting of Industries and Commerce Department within the premises of the Secretariat Buildings twice in four years.
An apology was also tendered for number production of records.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ petition.
27633 of 2003 companytending inter alia therein that there had been a total number application of mind on the part of the State Government both before issuing the numberification under Section 4 1 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
A companynter affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.
Questioning the said numberification, the First Respondent herein filed a writ petition in the High Court which was marked as W.P. No.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of such liberty, the First Respondent herein raised additional grounds by filing a Miscellaneous Application which was marked as WPMP No.
1 in favour of Caltex India Limited for a period of five years expiring on 31.7.1979.
The companynter affidavit filed on 30th October, 2003 was also affirmed by a Special Deputy Collector.
2 and 3 affirmed by one Shri B. Venkataiah, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition General both for himself as also the State in the said Miscellaneous Application.
Although, the Deputy Collector and the Appellant filed their companynter affidavits in the said proceedings, numbercounter affidavit was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Appellant being aggrieved thereby are before us.
On or about 3.6.1989, a fresh numberification was issued under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act for short the Act .
The First Respondent filed a detailed objection on 20th July, 1989 companytending that there existed numberpublic purpose for acquisition of the said land and in any event, other suitable lands are available therefor.
On the expiry of the said period, an eviction proceeding was initiated by the First Respondent against the Appellant by filing a suit which was marked as O.S. No.
A declaration thereafter was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 25.9.1989.
The Appellant herein, thus, was at the liberty to renew the period of lease for a period of further five years with effect from 1.8.1979 on the same terms and companyditions as companytained in the deed of lease dated 24.12.1974.
The parties were, however, granted liberty to file additional pleadings.
However, the said numberification lapsed.
companypany with effect from 30.12.1976.
2253 OF 2005 B. SINHA, J Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited was a tenant in the premises in question wherefor an agreement of tenancy was entered into by and between the father of the First Respondent and Caltex India Limited for a period of ten years from 15.12.1965.
The Appellant herein exercised its option of renewing the lease with effect from 24.4.1979.
910 of 1998 and by an order dated 19.8.1998 the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court on the ground that several other companytentious issues have been raised.
The Regional Manager of the Appellant herein thereafter sent a requisition to the Special Deputy Collector for acquisition of the land for the purpose of companytinuing the business wherefor a numberification was published on 15.10.1985.
