IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18905 of 1997 Between: 1 Ch.V.Subba Rao S/o Ayyappa Rao R/o Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Ch.Sudhakar S/o late Nageswar Rao R/o Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 Ch.Ganga Devi W/o late Nageswar Rao R/o Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam 2 The Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy director (Social Welfare) Krishna District At Machilipatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the award passed by the 2nd respondent dt.12-6-97 so far the lands of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provision of Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition act and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings in so far the land of the petitioners is concerned in Sy.No.406/1,2,3A of Chilakalpudi Village, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁeld challenging the award dated 12.6.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and Deputy Director (Social Welfare) Krishna District at Machilipatnam. It appears that an extent of Ac.3.34 cents of land in R.S.No.406/1, 2 3A of Chilakalapudi Village, Machilipatnam belonging to the petitioners was acquired by issuing a notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short ‘the Act’) and simultaneously a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 20.03.1979. Section 5-A enquiry was dispensed with under Section 17 (4) of the Act. After completing the formalities, an award was passed on 9.12.1981. However, the said award was questioned by some other aﬀected persons, whose lands were also acquired along with the petitioners under the very same notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act, and they have ﬁled WP No. 9164 of 1985. The said writ petition was allowed on 3.8.1989 holding that no opportunity was given to the petitioners therein and thus, the award was set aside and the respondents were directed to pass fresh award after conducting enquiry as per law. Admittedly, petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition. It is their case that in view of the writ petition ﬁled by others was allowed on 3.8.1989, the award notice was served on the petitioners on 20.5.1997 asking them to appear before the award enquiry on 9.6.1997 and ﬁle objections if any. The petitioners objected that since two years have been elapsed from 3.8.1989 and no award was passed within two years, the whole land acquisition proceedings gets vitiated. The objections ﬁled by the petitioners were set aside and ﬁnal award was passed on 12.6.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the award dated 12.6.1997 is contrary to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act and it reads as under: “11-A Period within which an award shall be made: The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation: In computing the period of two years referred to in this Section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded. “ There is no diﬃculty in understanding that the award should be passed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In this case, notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 20.3.1979 and within the prescribed time, declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was also published and ultimately, the award was passed on 9.12.1981. The earlier writ petition was ﬁled in the year 1985 and the same was allowed on 3.8.1989 quashing the award passed on 9.12.1981, directing the respondents to conduct award enquiry afresh. Assuming that, quashing the award dated 9.12.1981, on 3.8.1989, the notice under Section 6 of the Act gets revived. It does not automatically mean that even in a contingency of this nature, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer could have completed the enquiry and passed the award, within two years time. In fact, the very award dated 9.12.1981 was questioned after two years by ﬁling writ petition No.9164 of 1985. Even the declaration under Section 6 of the Act revives on 3.8.1989, the provisions of Section 11-A have to be invoked within two years, the award should be passed. In this case, no doubt, the award notice was issued on 20.5.1997 informing the petitioners that the enquiry would be conducted on 9.6.1997 where the petitioners would file objections, if any. Of course, the petitioners have taken such an objection stating that the award should be passed within two years from 3.8.1989, otherwise it gets automatically vitiated and, therefore, the award passed on 12.6.1997 was arbitrary and illegal. In this case, it is interesting to notice that possession was taken on 7.5.1982. Therefore, proceedings under Section 11-A of the Act have no application to a case of this nature. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that once the award dated 9.12.1981 is quashed, it must be deemed that proceedings taken thereafter i.e., 7.5.1982 also lost its importance. Therefore, notice issued on 20.05.1997, in spite of objections ﬁled, and the award passed on 12.6.1997, has to be set aside. I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As the advance possession has been taken, the period of two years speciﬁed under Section 11-A of the Act is not applicable. In this case, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking the provisions under Section 17(4) of the Act. Further, petitioners were not parties to the earlier writ petition. May be, entire proceedings were vitiated in view of allowing of earlier writ petition being W.P.No.9164 of 1985 ﬁled by third parties. On allowing the writ petition, may be, the declaration under Section 6-A of the Act gets revived and an Award should be passed within two years thereafter. But, this was not at the instance of the petitioners herein. It was at the instance of third parties, but they have not filed the present writ petition. Before concluding, it may be necessary to notice that the petitioners, as noticed above, were not parties to the writ petition No.9164 of 1985 and in view of that, they were paid compensation. As per the award dated 9.12.1981 the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Civil Court disposed of the OPs and they were subject matter of appeals before this Court and in the meanwhile the above writ petition No.9164 of 1985 was allowed on 3.8.1989. Therefore, all the proceedings taken got terminated. At the time of admitting the writ petition on 12.8.1997, no interim stay was granted. Further, in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents, it is stated that since the petitioners could not establish their title over the land, the matter has been referred to the Civil Court for adjudication under Section 31 (2) of the Act after passing the award. The petitioners failed to produce documentary evidence in the lower Court and hence, the OPs have been dismissed for default. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the very cause in the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________ 25-07-2008 rkk