DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. MADDUKURI JOGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two review petitions are filed by the respondents in the writ petitions with a prayer to review the common order dated 9. 2. 2007 rendered in WP No. 26464 of 1996 and WP No. 6539 of 2006.

(2.) THE writ petitioners claim to be the owners of the land situated in Pavara village, East Godavari District, which was acquired under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act")for. the purpose of providing house sites to the poor. It is not in dispute that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 12. 4. 1984. The enquiry under Section 5a of the Act was dispensed with invoking the urgency clause under section 17 (4) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 28. 4. 1984. Thereafter, possession was taken on 10. 6. 1984. However, WP No. 9314 of 1984 filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the respondents in invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act was allowed on 18. 10. 1985 holding that the action of the respondents in invoking section 17 (4) of the Act was unwarranted. Accordingly, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was set aside and the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to conduct enquiry under section 5a of the Act. Pursuant thereto, after conducting enquiry under Section 5a of the Act a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 17. 1. 1987. Subsequently after conducting due enquiry the Award was passed on 21. 11. 2005 fixing the compensation.

(3.) HI the writ petitions it was primarily contended by the petitioners that since the Award dated 21. 11. 2005 was made beyond two years from the date of publication of Section 6 declaration dated 17. 1. 1987, the entire proceedings stood lapsed under Section 11-A of the Act. The respondents did not dispute the dates as pleaded by the writ petitioners, however, contended that, during the pendency of w. A. No. 776 of 1989 filed by the 1st petitioner and his mother, stay of dispossession ordered by this Court was in operation and though the said appeal was disposed of on 5. 11. 1992 they were not aware of the same and consequently no award could be passed.