E ANJANAPPA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unfortunate and pathetic case has landed in this Court. The petitioner has lost an extent of 20 acres of land situated in S.No.1225 in Roddam village, Roddam mandal, Ananthapur District. The land was acquired for construction of tank by the 2nd Respondent-Irrigation Department. The notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 6-9-1985 and possession of the land was also taken by the respondents for construction of tank. The tank was accordingly constructed, but, however, the persons who lost the land still remained penniless. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no award has been passed with the result that their livelihood is at a stake.

(2.) In the counter filed on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, it is stated that the land was acquired for the 2nd Respondent-Irrigation Department, for construction of the tank and the requisition Department was directed to deposit the amount tentatively towards compensation. But, however, it appears that the Irrigation Department did not deposit the sum. The Government submits that the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed as the award could not be made within the period prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. It is rather unfair to contend in this manner more especially when the possession of the land was taken and the tank was constructed. It is not in dispute that the possession was already taken subsequent to Sections 4 and 6 notifications by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the respondents cannot resile from the proceedings. It is also not permissible for the respondents to surrender the land when possession was already taken and tank had already come into existence. The Supreme Court in such circumstances held that even if the award is not made within two years as required under Section 11-A, the proceedings would npt lapse. It was also held by the Supreme Court that even if the possession was taken illegally i.e. without making payment of estimated compensation, in such circumstance, would not absolve the Government from making the award. (See: Satendra Prasad Jain v. State ofU.P. (1) AIR 1993 SC 2517,Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (2) AIR 1996 SC 122, U.P. Jal Nigarm v. Karla Properties 1996 (3) SCC 124, Pratap and another v. State of Rajasthan (4) 1996 3 SCC 1, Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (5) AIR 1996 SC 1051).

(3.) The respondents admittedly invoked Section 17 of the Act and took possession under urgency requirement, under Section 17(3-A). The possession of the land cannot be taken unless the Collector tenders 80% of the estimated compensation. This provision appears to have been given a complete go bye by the respondents. No reasons are forthcoming in the counter. Though the petitioner could have successfully challenged the land acquisition proceedings, but as a law abiding citizen he was under bona fide impression and confirmed hope that the authorities would discharge their duties as enjoined by law. But to the dismay of the petitioner award proceedings were kept in cold storage exposing the petitioner to untold miseries. In these circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 3rd Respondent to complete further proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and pass an award as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of solatium, additional market value etc. as per the Amended Act.