S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) 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. On or about 24-12-1974 another deed of lease was executed by the mother of the Respondent No.1 in favour of Caltex (India) Limited for a period of five years expiring on 31-7-1979. 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Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited) Ordinance, 1976 (which was repealed and replaced by the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited) Act,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. The Central Government, however, in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 9 of the said Act directed that the said undertakings shall, instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, vest in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., a Govt. company with effect from 30-12-1976. Calfex 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. 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 conditions as contained in the deed of lease dated 24-12-1974. The Appellant herein exercised its option of renewing the lease with effect from 24-4-1979. 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. 737 of 1985. The said suit for eviction was decreed. An appeal preferred there against was dismissed. 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 continuing the business wherefor a notification was published on 15-10-1985. However, the said notification lapsed. On or about 3-6-1989 a fresh notification 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 contending that there existed no public purpose for acquisition of the said land and in any event, other suitable lands are available therefor. Upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents, the Collector is said to have conducted an enquiry and submitted his Report to the Government on or about 28-8-1989. A declaration thereafter was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 25-9-1989. Questioning the said notification, the First Respondent herein filed a writ petition in the High Court which was marked as W.P. No.16012 of 1989. Although, the Deputy Collector and the Appellant filed their counter affidavits in the said proceedings, no counter affidavit was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(2.) A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ petition. An appeal thereagainst was filed before this Court marked as Civil Appeal No.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 contentious issues have been raised. The parties were, however, granted liberty to file additional pleadings. 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 Nos.27633 to 2003 contending inter alia therein that there had been a total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government both before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. A counter-affidavit was filed by Respondent Nos.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.
(3.) It is not in dispute that the High Court upon satisfying itself directed the State to produce the records relating to the case. An affidavit affirmed by one Shri K.V. Rao was filed on 7th November, 2003 stating that the records were not 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 non-production of records. By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petition has been allowed. The Appellant being aggrieved thereby are before us. We may, however, notice that the Appellant herein had prayed for twelve weeks of time to vacate the premises which was granted by an order dated 19th December, 2003.;