VANKENA KRISHNA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed questioning the award dtd. 24/7/2012 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Ss. 11-A and 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The first petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.56 cents in RS No.115/2, second petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.56 cents in RS No.115/2A and the third petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of 0.50 cents in RS No.115/1B, situated in Badampudi village, Unguturu Mandal, West Godavari district and they are in actual and physical possession of the said lands; a notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was published on 20/1/2009 proposing to acquire the subject lands for distribution as house site pattas to the landless poor and public notice of the said notification was not displayed at any public place; personal notice was not served on the petitioners and urgency clause was not invoked; the third respondent caused enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act and draft notification was approved on 3/3/2010; Sec. 6 declaration was issued on 3/3/2010, but the notification or the declaration were not published in the largest circulated local linguistic language newspaper as contemplated under the Act; notification was issued proposing to acquire Ac.11.52 cents belonging to 11 persons, but except the lands of the petitioners the lands of other 8 persons were deleted from the proposed acquisition, in spite of the objections of the petitioners stating that they are small farmers, the subject lands are double crop wet lands, there is availability of other waste land in the subject village and in the nearby villages; the officials never physically visited the lands and possession was never taken and non-taking of possession is contrary to Sec. 17(5)(a)(b) of the Act; Sec. 4(1) notification was not published in the gazette within 40 days from the date of notification; Sec. 4(1) notification was issued on 21/1/2009 and Sec. 5A notification was published in the month of June 2009 and Sec. 6 notification was published in the District Gazette on 3/3/2010 i.e., after lapse of statutory period of one year as contemplated under the proviso to Sec. 6(1) of the Act; the award was passed on 24/7/2012 i.e., after two years from the date of publication of the first notification on 21/1/2009, hence the proceedings under the Act stands lapsed under law and the award was passed only after the petitioners approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.22617 of 2012, wherein there is no interim order of stay of operation etc., hence, the period of initial notification is enforceable under law; the respondents asked the petitioners to put their signatures to consider their objections and to show their presence in the office and believing the respondents, petitioners put their signatures on the papers hoping that their objections will be considered without suspecting the respondents and during the pendency of that Writ Petition No.22617 of 2012 petitioners came to know that the signatures of the petitioners were converted to suit to their convenience and if at all petitioners accepted the proposal and gave consent for award they ought to have released the compensation immediately; petitioners never appeared before the negotiation committee or before the District Collector; petitioners never gave consent for the award; even otherwise, the said award is void, as the same was passed after lapse of statutory period; during the pendency of the said Writ Petition petitioners came to know about the alleged consent award, hence they withdrew the said Writ Petition on 28/8/2012; the award was not passed within two years from the date of declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act; award was not served on the petitioners and it is contrary to Sec. 12(2) of the Act. Hence, the Writ Petition.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent stating, inter alia, that Sec. 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 23/1/2009, in the newspapers on 28/1/2009 and in the locality on 27/2/2009 and notice was issued in Form-3 under Sec. 5A of the Act to all the land owners to file their objections, if any and to attend the enquiry on 15/7/2009; petitioners and other land owners filed their objections on 15/7/2009 and personal hearing was also given and orders under Sec. 5A(2) of the Act were passed by the Collector on 27/2/2010 for an extent of Ac.5.62 cents and communicated to the land owners; thereafter, the District Collector approved the draft declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act on 2/3/2010 and the same was published in the Gazette on 3/3/2010, in the newspapers on 13/3/2010 and in the locality on 26/3/2010 and notices under Ss. 9(1) and 10 of the Act were issued on 23/1/2012 fixing the date of award enquiry as 8/2/2012 and the said notice was published in the office of the Tahsildar, Unguturu Mandal, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Unguturu, Gram Panchayat Office, Badampudi and the Sub-Registrar Office, Tadepalligudem and published on the land by hanging to a stick planted in the land and notices were also served in Form-VII under Ss. 9(3) and 10 of the Act on the petitioners on 23/1/2012; petitioners received the notices, acknowledged the same and gave consent for acquisition of the land and to pass a consent award at the rate of Rs.7,00,000.00 per acre; petitioners also signed the agreement in Form-III on 19/4/2012; they were served notices in Form-I to attend the DLNC meeting on 10/4/2012 and after giving consent, petitioners filed Writ Petition No.22617 of 2012 questioning the draft notification and declaration and subsequently withdrew the said Writ Petition; the land owners have not taken the compensation amount, hence the same was deposited in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Eluru under Sec. 31(2) of the Act and possession was taken under a cover of panchanama by the Tahsildar on 23/3/2013; as the petitioners filed a Writ Petition previously, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable; the petitioners having signed the agreement in Form-3 and agreed to pass consent award, now cannot contend that the award was passed after two years; there is no other suitable land to provide house sites and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.