GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MOHAMMAD MOINUDDIN HUSSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals one by the State and another by the Requisitioning Department i.e. the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, are filed against the judgment of the learned single judge in W.P.No. 17156/96 read with the order passed in the Review W.P.M.P.No. 27483 of 1996 in the said writ petition. The writ petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed with a direction to pay compensation at the rate prevailing on the date of issue of last Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') i.e. 3-6-1995. The review petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed on 2-12-1996. Hence these writ appeals by the State and H.M.W. Board.

(2.) The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents(appellants in W. A.No.1126 of 1997) to pass an award in respect of the acquired land in S.No.54, of Alwal village, Rangareddy district by fixing the market value prevailing on the date of issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 (1) in G.O.Rt.No.639, M.A. & U.D. dated 30-5-1995. in order to acquire the land for construction of 3 mg. surface reservoir at Alwal village during the year 1980, a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette dated 27-3-1980. The urgency clause under Section 17 (1) of the Act was invoked. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazette on 14-8-1980. Notice under Section 9(1) of the Act was issued on 5-9-1980. Possession was taken over on 22-9-1980. The effect of taking over such possession has resulted in the land absolutely vesting in the Government as per the mandate contained in the second part of Section 17(1). However, no award was passed and no compensation was paid to the land owners. The reason seems to be that clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority could not be obtained. On the premise that acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of Section 11-A of the Act, a second notification was published under Section 4 (1) in the Gazette dated 21-4-1989. Again, for want of clearance from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and for want of funds to be provided by the requisitioning department, the award was not passed within the time limit contemplated by Section 11-A of the Act. Once again, proceedings were treated to have lapsed and fresh requisition was sent by the department concerned on the basis of which the third notification under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6 were issued by the Government and published in the Gazette on 3-6-1995. Thus, in all, there were three notifications under Section 4 (1). After the third notification was issued, the authorities concerned started addressing themselves to the question whether in the wake of the decision of the Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain vs. State of U.P. Section 11-A has any application in view of the fact that possession had already been taken over by invoking Section 17 (1). At that stage, legal opinion was obtained and the notice was issued proposing to pass an award. After the notice of award enquiry was given, the respondents-land holders filed a claim petition on 17-8-1995 in which it was stated inter alia that a fresh declaration is not necessary at this stage as the lands have been taken over under the urgency clause. The writ petitioners therefore requested the L.A.O. to pass an award without further delay. Two days thereafter, the writ petition was filed seeking a direction to pay compensation based on the latest notification issued under Section 4 (1) in the year 1995. Obviously, the writ petitioners became apprehensive that the market value will be fixed on the basis of the first notification and therefore, filed the writ petition in post-haste. On 22-8-1996, the award was passed taking the crucial date for the purpose of fixing market value as 27-3-1980 which is the date on which the first notification under Section 4 (1) was published. The comepensation amount of Rs.6.67 lakhs was received by the claimants under protest. They also sought for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18. The writ petitioners - respondents now seek the relief that the award should be set aside and a fresh award should be directed to be passed fixing the market value on the basis of the third notification published on 3-6-1995.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe appellants as well as the learned Senior Council appearing for the requisitioning department that the notification issued in the year 1980 is the only valid notification and the subsequent notifications which according to the learned Counsel were issued under a misapprehension, are 'non est' in the eye of law. Placing strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court (1 supra), it is contended that the land vested in the Government on 22-9-1980 itself when the possession was taken over and in a case in which Section 17(1) is invoked, the question of lapsing under Section 11 -A of the Act does not arise. Reliance is also placed on two other Division Bench decisions of this Court in support of their argument.