- (1.) The respondent is the owner of land measuring about 1220 square yards, situate near the Secretariat Road at Hyderabad. That land had been given on lease to Caltex India Ltd. in the year 1965 for a period of ten years. The period of lease was extended from time to time. Subsequently, Caltex india Ltd. was taken over by the Government of India and all the assets and liabilities of Caltex India Ltd. which vested in the Central Government were subsequently transferred to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. A lease was entered into with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , the appellant herein, by the respondent for a further period of five years in 1979. The lease period came to an end on 1-8-1984. The respondent thereupon initiated eviction proceedings by filing a suit before the learned Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, after notice for eviction was issued by the respondent to the appellant on 3-4-1984. The suit was instituted in 1985. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, at the request of the appellant, the land was sought to be acquired by the State. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was initially issued in 1985 which, however, lapsed and a fresh notification came to be issued on 3-6-1989. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23-10-1989. It was the case of the Acquisition Authorities that the premises, which were in occupation of the appellant, were required for a public purpose i. e. to locate a petrol bunker of the appellant. The provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Act were invoked, though enquiry under Section 5 of the Act was not dispensed with.
(2.) The respondent challenged the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. It was, inter alia, asserted in the writ petition that acquisition was not for public purpose but for extraneous considerations to help the dealer of the appellant to continue to retain possession of the premises. While the writ petition was pending in the High Court, the suit for eviction filed by the respondent was decreed on 29-6-1990. The High Court, vide impugned order, allowed the writ petition and set aside the acquisition proceedings. By special leave, the appellant has put in issue the order of the High Court dated 27-3-1997.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;