HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.14569 of 2009 Date: November 04, 2009 Between: 1. Kola China Guruvaiah and 9 others. ... Petitioners And 1. The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda and another. ... Respondents * * * ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 21.7.2009 and directed the matter to appear in the list on 24.7.2009 and till then status quo was directed to be maintained by both parties. On 24.7.2009 the order of status quo granted earlier was extended until further orders. 2. W.V.M.P.No.2970 of 2009 is filed by the respondents to vacate the interim order. A reply affidavit also had been filed and at the request of the counsel on record the writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing and the same is being disposed of finally. 3. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners, had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the stand taken in the counter- affidavit and also the further clarification in the reply-affidavit as well and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition to be allowed. The learned counsel also would maintain that while making the award, procedure had not been followed and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to Sections 9 and 45 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) and also the A.P. Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Rules” for the purpose of convenience). The learned counsel also further had referred to Rules 3, 5 and 10 in particular and further would maintain that in the light of the clear language of Section 9 of the Act, the proceedings are vitiated and, hence, the writ petition to be allowed. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also pointed out to the contents of the representations made by the petitioners dated 25.11.2008, 19.3.2009 and 21.3.2009 and further pointed out to the contents of the objection petition and would maintain that if the events as explained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition carefully examined, since the procedure under the Act and the Rules had not been followed, the award in question is vitiated and, hence, the writ petition to be allowed. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. 4. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would maintain that the very writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had voluntarily given consent for acquiring their lands. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and further would maintain that out of 22 claimants, already 5 persons had taken compensation as per the consent award. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also would contend that it is incorrect to say that the signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioners had been obtained on blank papers. These actions of the petitioners being voluntary which ultimately resulted in consent award made under Section 11 (2) of the Act, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the same. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also would maintain that notices under Form-I under Rule 5 of the Rules had been issued, however, since the writ petitioners refused to receive the notices, the said notices were affixed on the respective doors of the houses of the petitioners. The petitioners did not turn up for the award inquiry and when that being so the petitioners having given consent for acquisition of the land at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre, the petitioners are estopped from contending otherwise at this stage. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also had pointed out the consent agreement, affidavit of P. Pullaiah, Form-III, Form-IV affidavit filed by Chinna Guravaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by B. Saidulu, Form-IV affidavit filed by L. Mattaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by N. Venkaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by Nakka Somaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by N. Saidamma, w/o Pullaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by Bantu Ashamma, w/o Gurraiah and 4 sons, Form-IV affidavit filed by Lingampally Lakshman, Form-IV affidavit filed by Dandigala Punnamma, w/o Narayana, Form-IV affidavit filed by Palla Somaiah, s/o Pentaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by Palla Pullaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by Dundigala Mattaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by Lingampally Peda Saidulu, s/o Sathaiah, Form-IV affidavit filed by Bandu Padma, Form-IV affidavit filed by Palla Sneha, Form-IV affidavit filed by K. Vasantha, w/o Chenna Reddy with particulars of land and PPB, Death certificate of Sri K. Chenna Reddy, Form-2A published in the District Gazette vide Gazette No.477, dt.07.7.2008 issued through proceedings No.G/323/08, dt.5.7.2008 of District Collector, Nalgonda and publication of substance in locality, Form-2A published in the District Gazette vide Gazette No.477 dated 7.7.2008 issued through Proceedings No.G/323/08, dt.5.7.2008 of District Collector, Nalgonda and publication of substance in locality (Telugu) and Form-5A published in the District Gazette vide Gazette No.478, dated 09.7.2008 issued through Proceedings No.G/323/08, dt.5.7.2008 of District Collector, Nalgonda and publication in locality (English). 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition pointed out to the relevant portions of the affidavits and also further pointed out to the other proceedings and would maintain that in the light of the same, the stand taken by the writ petitioners cannot be sustained and, hence, the writ petition to be dismissed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also pointed out to the relevant provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules as well. 6. Heard the counsel, perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the averments made in the counter- affidavit and also the averments made in the reply-affidavit and the records placed before this Court. 7. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in passing the Award in Proceedings No.E1/978/2008, dated 30.6.2009, in respect of petitioners lands situate in S.Nos.58/A, 59/EE, 57/AA, 56/A1, 59/A3, 57/AA, 59/A1, 58/E/1, 57/AA, 57/AA and 59/E1 in Miryalaguda village and Mandal, Nalgonda District without issuing notice and without following procedure, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Sections 9 and 45 of the Act read with Rules and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land without following the procedure and pass such other suitable orders. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of small extents of agricultural dry lands situate at S.Nos.56, 57, 58 and 59 in Miryalaguda village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, and are eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Miryalaguda Mandal issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds in their favour for their respective shares of land. The extents of land owned and possessed by the petitioners are as hereunder. Sl.No Survey No. Name of the pattadar/enjoyer (petitioners) Extent of land Ac. – Gts. 1 58/A Kola China Guruvaiah, s/o Venkaiah 2.11 2 59/EE Bantu Saidulu, s/o Edaiah 1.36 3 57/AA Lingampally Mattaiah, s/o Sattaiah 0.22 4 56/A1 Nakka Venkaiah, s/o Somaiah 0.17 5 59/A3 Nakka Somulu, s/o Chandraiah 0.26 6 57/AA Lingampally Saidulu, s/o Sattaiah 0.23 7 59/A1 Nakka Saidamma, w/o Pullaiah 0.25 8 58/E/1 Bantu Ashamma, w/o Gouraiah 0.31 9 57/AA Lingampally Lakshmamma, w/o China Saidulu 0.22 10 59/E1 Palla Somaiah, s/o Pentaiah 0.18 The petitioners are paying cist regularly and they are not having any other lands in the village. 9. While so, the second respondent issued a notification, dated 7.7.2008, under Section 4 (1) of the Act proposing to acquire the land in an extent of Ac.18-34 guntas including the petitioners’ land in S.Nos.56, 57, 58 and 59 situate at Muryalaguda village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections under ‘Indiramma Scheme’. The inquiry under Section 5A of the Act had been dispensed with by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act and the Draft Declaration was made on 09.7.2008. When the second respondent proposed for negotiation and offered to pay meagre amount of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre, the petitioners had not accepted the said proposal, inasmuch as the market value of the land is on the higher side to the tune of above Rs.20.00 lakhs, and submitted a representation dated 25.11.2008 to that effect. However, the second respondent and its officials had obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioners on some blank papers in the month of January, 2009. All the petitioners are illiterates and they were induced by the officials saying that they will be paid compensation as claimed by them. After realizing the said inducement, the petitioners had submitted representations on 19.3.2009 and 21.3.2009 expressing their protest and disagreement. 10. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the second respondent issued notice in Form-I under Rule 5 of the Rules on 29.6.209, which was pasted on their doors, stating that the inquiry will be held on 29.6.2008 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda. Immediately, all the petitioners had filed their objection petition on 06.7.2009 raising all objections inter alia submitting that the notice in Form-I was not served, but was pasted on the doors of their respective houses at about 6-30 p.m. and also stated that there are Government lands available for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections and that their lands are situate in developed area surrounded by the housing plots and claimed the payment of compensation as per the prevailing market value. As there was no response from the second respondent, the petitioners got issued a notice dated 08.7.2009 requesting the second respondent to follow the due process of law. It is only thereafter the second respondent issued a notice of award on 10.7.2009 which was pasted on the doors of the petitioners’ houses stating that Award was passed on 30.6.2009 in proceedings No.E1/978/2008. No notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners and the procedure contemplated under the Act was not followed. 11. Further it is stated that the procedure adopted by the second respondent is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act read with Rules. As per Rule 3 of the Rules the action for negotiations shall commence only during the award inquiry conducted pursuant to the publication of Section 4 (1) Notification. Admittedly, after publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the petitioners raised their objections and did not agree for consent award by making a representation on 23.11.2008 itself. Notice in Form-I was pasted on the doors of the petitioners’ houses on 29.6.2009 at about 6-30 p.m., whereas the inquiry was conducted by the second respondent on 29.6.2009 itself. As per Section 9 (2) of the Act there should be clear interval of 15 days between the date of publication of notice and the date fixed for inquiry. The service of notice under Sections 9 and 45 of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance of the said procedure would vitiate the entire proceedings as being opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is also pertinent to mention that the notice of award indicates that the award was passed on 30.6.2009, but a perusal of the copy of the award shows that the award was signed on 29.6.2009 itself which establishes that the award was ante-dated. 12. Further it is stated that as per the Rules it is only after agreeing for consent award, pursuant to the notice under Rule 5 in Form-I, the agreement has to be executed in Form-III and thereafter a sworn affidavit on the stamp paper has to be executed in Form-IV. But this procedure had not been followed by the second respondent. The second respondent played fraud on the petitioners with an ulterior motive to deprive of them of their small extents of land under the guise of award and the action of the respondents is violative of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Thus, specific stand had been taken that the award cannot be said to be consent award and the same was made without following the procedure as contemplated by the Act and the Rules and, hence, the said award is null and void and the same is liable to be quashed. 13. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent specific stand had been taken that the writ petition was filed suppressing the true facts, especially, the fact that they had voluntarily given their consent on 20.12.2007 for acquiring their lands in Sy.Nos.56 to 59 admeasuring Acs.20.28 guntas of Miryalaguda village and Mandal and, hence, on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that in the month of December 2007, while the Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector, Miryalaguda, were surveying the lands in Miryalaguda village for locating the suitable lands for provision of house sites to the persons belonging to weaker sections under ‘Indiramma Phase-II Programme’, the petitioners had approached the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda and offered voluntarily their lands in Sy.Nos.56 to 59 of Miryalaguda village and Mandal and requested to acquire the lands @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. All the petitioners, except petitioner No.5 had given their offer to give their lands @ Rs.6,50,000/- on a non-judicial stamp papers. The Tahsildar accepted the offer given by the petitioners and submitted proposals to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, for approval to acquire the lands admeasuring Acs.18-34 guntas in Sy.Nos.56 etc., of Miryalaguda village and Mandal vide his office letter Reference.No.E1/783/08, dated 30.01.2008. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda vide his letter dated 18.4.2008 submitted Draft Notification and Draft Declaration proposals to the District Collector, Nalgonda, and the District Collector, Nalgonda, by his proceedings No.G/323/08, dated 05.7.2008, had approved the proposals for Draft Notification and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the lands admeasuring Acs.18-34 guntas. The Draft Notification was published in the Nalgonda District Gazette vide No.477, dated 07.7.2008. Section 5 A inquiry was dispensed with invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. The particulars of the publication of Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act are as hereunder. Item Gazette No. & Date Publication in newspapers Publication of substance in the village Draft Notification 477, dt.7.7.08 1. Saakshi Daily newspaper, dt. 19.8.08. 2. Kshanam Kshanam Telugu daily newspaper, dt.7.8.08 1. Affixed on the notice board of Municipality, Miryalaguda on 18.7.2008. 2. Affixed on the notice board of Tahsil Office, Miryalaguda on 18.7.2008. 3. Affixed on the notice board of Revenue Divisional Office, Miryalaguda on 18.7.2008. The particulars of Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the District Gazette No.478, dated 09.7.2008 and the particulars thereof are as hereunder. Item Gazette No. & Date Publication in newspapers Publication of substance in the village Draft Declaration 478, dt.7.7.08 1. Saakshi Daily newspaper, dt.07.8.08. 2. Kshanam Kshanam Telugu daily newspaper, dt.7.8.08. 1. Affixed on the notice board of Municipality, Miryalaguda on 18.7.08. 2. Affixed on the offices of Tahsil Office, Miryalaguda on 18.7.08. 3. Affixed on the notice board of Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda dt.18.7.08. 14. Further it is stated that all the petitioners came to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and executed an agreement in Form-III and an affidavit in Form-IV on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- the particulars of which are as hereunder. Sl.No. Name of the writ petitioner Date of signing of consent agreement in Form-III and affidavit in Form-IV 1 Kola China Guravaiah, s/o Venkaiah 15.01.2009 2 Bantu Saidulu, s/o Edaiah 15.01.2009 3 Lingampalli Mataiah, s/o Sathaiah 09.01.2009 4 Nakka Venkaiah, s/o Somaiah 15.01.2009 5 Nakka Somulu, s/o Chandraiah 15.01.2009 6 Lingampalli Saidulu, s/o Sathaiah 09.01.2009 7 Nakka Saidamma, w/o late Pullaiah 15.01.2009 8 Bantu Ashamma 15.01.2009 15. It is also the case of the respondents as averred in the counter- affidavit that the petitioners executed agreements in Form-III agreeing to give the land at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. The petitioners also had executed an affidavit in Form-IV wherein they had undertaken that they will not claim for higher compensation in any court of law or in any forum and shall abide by the consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act. Based on the agreement in Form-III and the affidavit in Form-IV executed by the petitioners, a consent award was passed under Section 11 (2) of the act vide Award No.E1/978/08, dated 29.6.2009. Notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act were issued to the petitioners, but the petitioners refused to receive the same. Hence, the same were affixed on the doors of their houses. 16. Further specific stand had been taken that there is no dispute with regard to the title of the petitioners. It is also averred in para 5 of the counter-affidavit that it is true that Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 07.7.2008 proposing to acquire land admeasuring Acs.18-34 guntas in Sy.Nos.56 to 59 of Miryalaguda village and Mandal which includes the lands of the petitioners dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act. Since there was hike in the lands in Miryalaguda, the petitioners had changed their mind and started bargaining for higher amounts. The petitioners submitted their representation dated 25.11.2008 claiming compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. Though they claimed Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, all the land owners, including the petitioners in the present writ petition, had signed agreements in Form-III and affidavits in Form-IV in different dates in the month of January 2009 agreeing to take compensation @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. Out of 22 claimants, already 5 persons had taken compensation as per the consent award. It is not correct to say that the signatures and thumb impressions of the petitioners were taken on blank papers in January 2009. The petitioners are estopped from challenging the consent award dated 29.6.2009 passed under Section 11 (2) of the Act. 17. It is also averred that it is incorrect to say that notices in Form-I were affixed to the door on 29.6.2008 at 6-30 p.m stating that the inquiry would be held on 29.6.2009 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioners did not turn up for award inquiry and, therefore, the award was passed on 29.6.2009 under Section 11 (2) of the Act. 18. Further specific stand had been taken that when the petitioners had accepted for consent award by executing the agreement in Form-III and affidavit in Form-IV, it is not mandatory to issue notices under Section 9 of the Act. It is further stated that the concerned clerk, who prepared the notices under Section 12 (2), wrongly mentioned the award date as 30.6.2009 and it is only a clerical error. It is not correct to say that award is ante-dated. Further specific stand had been taken that it is a consent award made under Section 11 (2) of the Act on the basis of Form-III agreement and affidavit in Form-IV executed by the petitioners. The possession of the land of the petitioners also had been taken on 14.7.2009 under a cover of panchanama and, thus, the petitioners are not in possession of the land. Out of 22 claimants, already 5 persons had received compensation without any protest and these writ petitioners, with a mala fide intention, filed the present writ petition. 19. In the reply affidavit filed, the averments made in the counter- affidavit had been denied and again the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been repeated. It is stated that it is only a conditional offer and there is no concluded contract between the respondents and the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners also submitted a representation on 25.11.2008 that they are not agreeable for meagre compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-, inasmuch as the value of the lands are on the higher side. It is also stated that by 20.12.2007 the acquisition proceedings were not commenced. Hence, the respondent authorities are not entitled to knock away the petitioners’ property for throw away price and without following the procedure. It is not correct to say that the petitioners executed agreement in Form-III agreeing to give the land at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre and had executed affidavit in Form-IV wherein they had undertaken not to claim higher compensation in any court of law or forum and shall abide by the consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act. It is also incorrect to state that basing on the agreement in Form-III and affidavit in Form-IV, the consent award was passed under Section 11 (2) of the Act on 29.6.2009. 20. The stand taken that they are voluntarily signed the agreement had been specifically denied and the further stand taken that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the consent award also had been specifically denied. Further stand had been taken that the issuance of notices under Section 9 of the Act is mandatory and further the petitioners had accepted the consent award, cannot be a sustainable stand. The different provisions of the Act and the Rules again had been specified in the reply affidavit. 21. Section 9 of the Act reads as hereunder: “(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than 15 days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under Section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent. (3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate. (4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and as no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place or business and (registered under Sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898).” 22. Section 45 of the Act reads as hereunder: (1) Service of any notice under this Act shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed, in the case of a notice under Section 4, by the Officer therein mentioned, and, in the case of any other notice, by or by order of the Collector or the Judge. (2) Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named. (3) When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him, and, if no such adult male member can be found, the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells