E RAMASUBBAREDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the petitioner was acquired for Srisailam Project. Notification under S.4(1) and declaration under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on February 20, 1981. The award was passed on 15-9-1986. It is stated that cheques were issued to the petitioner for the amount of compensation. The petitioner presented the cheques in his bank. According to the petitioner, the cheques ought to have been en-cashed on or before 24th September, 1984 as the period of two years prescribed under S.11-A of the Act would expire by that date. As the cheques were not cashed before that date, the petitioner submits there is no award in the eye of law and all the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act will be deemed to have lapsed by virtue of S.11-A of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, prays that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue a fresh notification under S. 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The respondents filed common counter affidavit. It is stated that the cheques were issued on 7-9-1986. It is further stated that under S.11-A of the Act the award has to be passed within two years of the declaration under S.6 of the Act. In this case, the award was passed within the specified time. The Government of Andhra Pradesh have authorised the Deputy Collector to issue cheques on the State Bank of India, Rajampet. Accordingly, the Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Cuddapah issued cheques do the State Bank of India, Rajampet. The petitioner should have presented the cheques in that bank for encashment but because the petitioner did not present cheques in the said bank, the Land Acquisition Officer is not responsible for the delay in the encashment of the cheques. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

(3.) Sri Subrahmanyam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of enacting S.11-A of the Act is to avoid delays in payment of compensation to the claimants, if after making award, compensation is not paid, S.11-A would be defeated, therefore, payment of compensation should also be within two years; otherwise it would amount to not passing the award within the specified time resulting in lapse of acquisition proceedings. The learned Government Pleader on the other land submits that delay in payment of compensation neither affects the validity of the award which is passed within the specified period nor the land acquisition proceedings.