HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 28636 and 28837 of 1998 COMMON ORDER: Since both the writ petitions cover the same subject matter and since the questions involved in these writ petitions being similar, they are disposed of by this common order. The petitioners herein claim to be owners of various extents of lands situated in Survey Nos. 413/23-A, 442/1- A,3, 2-A, 2-B, and 3-A, 3-B and 442/1-A of Rayabhupalapatnam-Kothur Village. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the action of the respondents in acquiring the aforementioned lands of the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and the notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. A few facts, which are necessary for disposal of these cases are that in pursuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the purpose of industrial development and by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29.10.1994. The petitioners submitted their objections to the said acquisition proceedings. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the Zonal Manager, A.P.I.I.C., East Godavari District has requested the Collector to withdraw the proposal for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer has not passed any award nor any further proceedings have been initiated by the respondents and therefore, the acquisition proceedings get elapsed. Hence, the present writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that having regard to the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired, there is no necessity for invoking the urgency clause and for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5- A. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, while drawing my attention to para-7 of the counter affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No.28636 of 1998, has stated that advance possession was taken on 7.1.1995 after tendering 80% of the compensation amount on the estimated market value and consent award has been passed on 3.10.1996, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the same. In order to ascertain the correct position, on an earlier occasion, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the record. Having perused the records, it is seen that the so called consent award cannot be termed as an award as the same is passed only with a view to get over the outer statutory period of limitation. Since the said award has been passed with a view to get over the statutory period of limitation, it cannot be considered as valid. Further, whether the award is a valid one or not is a different aspect and keeping in view the long lapse of time and taking into account the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired, this Court is of the view that there was no necessity for invoking the urgency clause and the authorities ought to have conducted the enquiry under Section 5-A and proceeded with the acquisition of the land. Therefore, this Court is of the view that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is bad and the same is unsustainable. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the entire acquisition proceedings are set aside. Consequently, the consent Award dated 3.10.1996, is also set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition in accordance with law. It is also open for the petitioners to raise all the objections for such acquisition, including the objection with regard to limitation etc., The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J Date: 9th December, 2010 pnb