BHIMAVARAPU NAGI REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the appellant to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy. No.208/2, 208/3 and 208/5p of Davuluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short 'the Act, 1894']. A necessary notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 20/6/2013. A declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act, 1894 was given on 2/1/2014 and an award fixing compensation was passed on 29/12/2015.

(2.) This acquisition process was challenged by the appellant by way of W.P. No.10516 of 2017 before this Court. The contention of the appellant was that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short 'the Act, 2013] had come into force on 1/1/2014. Sec. 25 of the Act, 2013 mandated that an award should be passed within twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under Sec. 19 of the Act, 2013. Failing which, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. However, the first proviso granted power to the Government to extend the said period of twelve months if circumstances justifying the same exist. The appellant contends that the aforesaid period of twelve months expired on 2/1/2015 and no orders of the Government extending time had been passed. Hence, the passing of the award on 29/12/2015 is beyond the said period and consequently, the acquisition proceedings should lapse.

(3.) A learned single judge of this Court, after considering this contention, dismissed the writ petition by an order dtd. 24/3/2017. The learned single judge took the view that Sec. 24 of the Act, 2013, which brought into application the remaining provisions of the Act, 2013, had only stipulated that the new Act would govern the manner of fixation of compensation and consequently, the time frame set out under Sec. 25 of the Act would not be applicable to the present case and the provisions of Sec. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 would be applicable. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.