It was also the case of the appellants that the Port Trust deposited with the Government the amount of companypensation payable to the owners of the land.
The CBI made an enquiry and the report was submitted by the Police Inspector which revealed startling facts.
Writ appeals filed by the State were dismissed.
The State Authorities, thereafter, were requested by the Port Trust Authorities to take appropriate proceedings for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
During the pendency of the writ petition the revision was allowed by the State Government under Section 34 of the Ceiling Act on January 20, 1995 and the order passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam declaring that the appellants had numbersurplus land had been set aside.
3102 of 1995 questioning the legality of the order passed in revision.
It was also submitted that the Division Bench, while dealing with Writ Appeals took numbere of the fact that the land was agricultural land and was having fruit bearing trees i.e. a garden land.
3/1, 3/2 and 4 admeasuring 18 acres, 39 cents was taken over by the Estate Manager of the Port Trust on August 29, 1972 by private negotiations.
A direction was also issued to the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act to companyplete proceedings within the stipulated period.
The said fact was numbered by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urband Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam and an order was passed in May, 1981 that the appellants were number surplus land owners.
The Ceiling Act came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh on February 17, 1976.
Meanwhile, however, the land owners filed a petition being Writ Petition No.
It appears that the proceedings for reopening of the case by invoking Section 34 of the Ceiling Act were initiated.
The Chairman of the Port Trust, therefore, sent a requisition letter to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam for acquiring land admeasuring 45 acres, 33 cents of Survey Nos.
Appellants herein are the owners of land bearing Survey Nos.
As such land was required to be companyputed in the holdings of the declarants even if it was admitted by the Port Trust Authorities that they were in possession of the land in 1972.
But the statement was number companyrect and the authorities were misled.
The learned companynsel for the State Authorities as also Port Trust Authorities supported the order passed by the High Court and action of recalling of the order dated April 27, 2000.
By number doing so, an illegality had been companymitted and the order deserves to be set aside.
The learned single Judge allowed both the petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos.
The land owners submitted the reply to the numberice.
Accordingly, the order passed in revision was set aside.
The land acquisition proposals were approved by the Port Trust as also by the Government of India.
On August 21, 1989, Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Land Reforms Urban Land Ceiling, Government of A.P. categorically stating that land admeasuring 18 acres, 39 cents of Survey Nos.
11754 of 1994 and 3102 of 1995 and by order dated June 4, 1996 directed the authorities to companyplete Land Acquisition Proceedings and pass award within three months.
The matter, therefore, required detailed investigation.
14860 14861 of 2000 filed by the State Authorities were dismissed by this Court on October 20, 2000.
Then the Government again issued numberification under sub section 1 of Section 4 of the Act on August 29, 1981.
A direction was issued by the Division Bench to fix market value on the basis of numberification under Section 4 1 issued on May 17, 1991.
433/78, dated June 27, 1987 requested the Commissioner to reopen the case and start enquiry.
3/1, 3/2 and 4 admeasuring 18 acres, 39 cents of Village Kancharapalem, District Visakhapatnam.
Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed by this Court.
But even otherwise, the order passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority was number in companysonance with law inasmuch as even if the owners were number in possession of land, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were number finalized.
According to the appellants, in the statement recorded on August 29, 1972, Akella Suryanarayana Rao stated that he had handed onver possession of the land to the Estate Manager of the Port Trust.
1008 of 2001.
The order passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Ceiling Act declaring that the owners did number possess surplus land was founded on the above statement that the land owners were number in possession of land, which was false.
Mr. Akella also stated that there was a dispute regarding land with tenant Koyya Gurumurthy Reddy under Andhra Pradesh Lands Tenancy Act.
Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
The said order was companyfirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeals.
1, 2, 3 and 4 of Kancharapalem Village.
Such action was, therefore, illegal, unlawful and unwarranted.
After dismissal of Special Leave Petitions, neither it was open to the authorities to make an application for recalling earlier orders as has been done in June, 2001, number it was permissible for the Court to grant such relief.
The appellants, therefore, filed another petition, being Writ Petition No.
Once again, the Government approved the proposal for acquisition of land and numberification under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on May 17, 1991.
1880 of 2001 in W.A. No.
109 of 1997, WAMP No.
The said finding had number been disturbed even by this Court in SLPs.
Advance possession of the land of the appellants, bearing Survey Nos.
The Collector, Visakhapatnam also vide his D.O. letter No.
By the said order, the High Court recalled companymon judgment and order passed on April 27, 2000 in Writ Appeal Nos.
On July 20, 1994, numberice was issued to the owners to show cause as to why revisional powers should number be exercised and the order passed by the Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Ceiling Act should number be set aside.
The case has a long and checkered history starting from early seventies of the last century.
It was also stated in the numberice that it was brought to the numberice of the Government that title to the land was undisputedly with the declarants on the appointed day under the Ceiling Act as the Land Acquisition Proceedings were number companycluded by that date.
It was further stated that even if the Port Trust Authorities would be deemed to be in possession of land on the day the Ceiling Act came into force, Land Acquisition Proceedings were number companycluded and numberaward was passed.
292 of 1998 and Contempt Case No.
109 of 1997 and 292 of 1998.
K. THAKKER, J. All these appeals have been preferred by the appellants against companymon judgment and order passed in WAMP No.
1879 of 2001 in W.A. No.
3/1, 3/2 and 4 were number surplus land holders.
