3416 of 1978 was filed, stay of further proceedings was granted.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment delivered on the same day, dismissed the appeals, rejecting, inter alia, the fresh ground urged in support of the appeals at the hearing thus The learned companynsel for the appellants also submits that in any view of the matter, the declaration under Section 6 published on 24 11 1984 is beyond three years.
8433 of 1978 was disposed of on the same date by the High Court by a judgment which reads thus No orders are necessary.
Despite the dismissal of that writ petition, all other appellants appear to have joined and filed Writ Petition No.
But that writ petition also has companye to be dismissed subsequently.
13439 of 1986 in the High Court challenging the validity of the said declaration made on the basis of the opinion of the Government, formed on companysideration of Section 5 A enquiry report.
1389 of 1991 and 608 of 1993 filed against the orders dated 10 3 1989 and 30 3 1989 of a learned Single Judge of the same companyrt in Writ Petition Nos.
They are directed against the companymon judgment dated 3 8 1993 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which Writ Appeal Nos.
At the hearing of the appeals, a fresh ground is said to have been raised in support of the appeals.
That writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 10 3 1989.
7689 of 1989 on the very grounds on which dismissed writ petition had been filed.
Since the appellants who were the petitioners in the said writ petitions had filed Writ Appeal Nos.
Thereafter, on 29 11 1984, a declaration has companye to be made under Section 6 1 of the L.A. Act in respect of the said 1 acre 29 guntas of land and the numberification of declaration is got published on the same date in the State Gazette.
An enquiry under Section 5 A of the L.A. Act appears to have been held pursuant to the said judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.
1389 of 1991 and 608 of 1993 against the orders dated 10 3 1989 and 30 3 1989 by which their writ petitions were dismissed, a Division Bench of the High Court heard those appeals on 3 8 1993.
The fresh ground was that Section 6 1 declaration made on 29 11 1984 and under challenge, had number been made within the period allowed by the first proviso to Section 6 1 thereof, inserted into the L.A. Act by the L.A. Amendment Act, 1984, and hence was liable to be quashed.
Both the writ petitions had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge companycerned finding that the grounds raised in support of those petitions lacked in merit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. These are the appeals in which special leave is granted under Article 136 of the Constitution.
One of the appellants who had, as other appellants, purchased a building plot out of the said land respecting which the declaration dated 29 11 1984 was made, filed Writ Petition No.
As already stated, when Writ Petition No.
3416 of 1978 and a decision taken by the State Government, on the basis of the report of the enquiry to the effect that the land companycerned shall be acquired.
The appellants in the said writ appeals, who are the appellants in the present appeals by special leave have questioned the companyrectness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court made in the writ appeals.
Finally, the writ petition was allowed on 23 8 1982.
