NARSAIAH V Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NIZAMABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ declaring the award dated 22-9-1986 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, 2nd respondent herein, as illegal and void and for a direction to initiate fresh notification u/sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act')-

(2.) Originally the writ petition was filed by 68 persons. Since some of the petitioners subsequently died, their LRs have been added as petitioners 69to91. The petitioners are illiterate, poor and small farmers, including Harijans. Each of the petitioners owns a small piece of land, in Muthyampet and Domakonda villages. Their lands of an extent of Ac. 22 have been acquired for the purpose of formation of percolation tank across Pochamma vagu. The Land Acquisition Officer has taken possession of the lands in 1981 as per his counter, but as per the petitioners,during 1978 itself, much prior to Section 4(1} Notification, in any event, forcibly and commenced construction of the percolation tank unauthorisedly and completed in November, 1981. Section 4(1) Notification was published on 8-11-1982, thus illegally depriving the petitioners of their meagre and only source of livelihood. After conducting enquiry the above award has been passed on 22-9-1986 and the petitioners have also withdrawn the compensation awarded. However, the petitioners were not furnished with the copy of the award proceedings, which forced them to file W.P.No.15057/86 for necessary direction and as per the Court's direction dt. 23-10-1986, the copy of the award and other information were furnished. The petitioners though filed a petition for referenceu/sec. 18of the Act to theCivil Court, ithasnot been referred so far, inspite of a direction to refer in W.P.No. 17256/93.

(3.) The petitioners assail the notification and award on various grounds: (i) The taking possession of the lands without initiation of proceedings under the Act was wholly illegal, unauthorised and high handed which would vitiate all the proceedings taken subsequent thereto, including notification u/sec, 4(1) of the Act and the award passed; (ii) Since the award came to be passed after several years from the date of Section 4(1) notification, the Court should hold that there was no urgency to invoke Section 17 of the Act and dispense with enquiry u/sec. 5-A of the Act; (iii) Since 80% of the compensation was not tendered as required u/sec. 17(3-A), the notification was vitiated; (iv) They were not served with the statutory notices provided u/secs. 8 and of the Act during the award enquiry and the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act have not been complied with in the conduct of enquiry; (v) The substance of the notification has not been published in the locality; (vi) In any event the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed u/sectiort 11-A of the Act, since the award was not passed within two years from the date of declaration u /section 6 of the Act; (vii) Lastly it was vehemently contended that Section 4(1) notification was published only with motive to 'peg-down' the compensation that is payable to the petitioners and hence it shall be held tha t the notification should be deemed to have been published on the date of the judgment and compensation should be directed to be paid accordingly.