The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant without going into the merits of the aforesaid petition on the aforesaid basis.
It appears that during the companyrse of the said inquiry the appellant stated to the Land Acquisition Officer companycerned that he was willing to agree to the land being acquired provided he was given companypensation in a lump sum.
There was numberhing inequitable or improper in withdrawing the offer, as the appellant was in numberway bound to keep the offer open indefinitely.
It was held by him that the withdrawal of the said representation or companysent by the appellant did number in any manner assist him.
An inquiry was companyducted regarding the fixation of companypensation to be awarded to the appellant and others whose lands were ac quired under the said numberification.
The substance of the said numberification was published in the locality where the land proposed to be acquired is situated, on April 2, 1978, long after the period of 40 days within which it was required to be published as per the provisions of section 4 1 of the said Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act, 1983, Act 9 of 1983 .
On November 9, 1979, before any award was made, the companysent to the acquisi tion of the land given by the appellant, as aforestated, was withdrawn by him and on May 14, 1981, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the land acquisition proceedings.
The aforesaid facts have been found by the Trial Court and accepted by the High Court.
A Notifica tion under section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the said Act was published in the Government Gazette on February 9, 1976.
Leave alone, making the award of lump sum companypensation, numberaward at all was made by the said officer awarding companypensation to the appellant till November 9, 1979, when the aforesaid offer was with drawn by the appellant or even till the writ petition was filed.
Till the offer was accepted there was numbercontract between the parties and the appellant was entitled to with draw his offer.
The appellant is the owner of a plot companyprising roughly 2 acres of land in Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada Taluk, in the Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge before whom the said writ petition along with another writ petition came up for hearing held that the appellant had agreed to the acquisition of the said land on companypensation being paid as aforestated, and hence it was number open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the said numberifica tions issued under section 4 1 and section 6 of the said Act.
Probably the reason was that if the companypensation was awarded in a lump sum without delay, the appellant might have been able to purchase some other land, as his holding was under the ceiling limit.
This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court which dismissed the aforesaid writ appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Very few facts are necessary for the disposal of this ap peal.
1720 of 1986.
Kanta Rao for the Appellant.
577 of 1985.
Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Respondents.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire about 1 acre and 89 cents out of the aforesaid land for a public propose.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Writ Appeal No.577 of 1985 filed in that Court.
