THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.9161 of 2007 ORDER: This matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The petitioners herein initially filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the draft notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act issued by the Project Director, Outer Ring Road (ORR) and Special Collector (Land Acquisition), HUDA Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.C/ORR/1099/2005 dated 13.12.2005 (published in A.P. Gazette in ORR No.182) to the extent of petitioners’ land admeasuring Ac.3-00 guntas situated in Sy.No.296 of Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary. By virtue of the order passed in W.P.M.P.No.16957 of 2014, petitioners have also been permitted to assail Section 6 declaration issued vide File No.D/ORR/1099/2005 dated 14.8.2006 (published in A.P. Gazette dated 14.8.2006) issued by the Project Director, Outer Ring Road and Special Deputy Collector (LA), HUDA Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and the Award in Rc.No.81/ORR/LA/Unit VII/2005 dated 11.2.2009 passed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-VI, ORR, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. 2. Heard Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 and Sri Ravindra Yanamandra, Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 apart from perusing the material available on record. 3. According to the petitioners, petitioners 1 and 2 own Ac.2.00 guntas and the 3rd petitioner owns Ac.1.00 guntas of land situated in S.No.296 of Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, proposing to acquire a total extent of Ac.48.37 guntas including the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road. The said draft notification was followed by draft declaration dated 14.8.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act and the Award dated 11.2.2009. Apart from the allegation of intentional change of alignment to benefit certain individuals, it is the case of the petitioners herein that even though the revenue records pertaining to the subject lands are standing in the name of the petitioners, the authorities did not show their names either in the draft notification or draft declaration. In the counter filed by 3rd respondent, it is stated that basing on the entries of 2002-03 in revenue records, the draft notification and draft declaration were issued and that the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records only in 2004 and that as per the Land Acquisition Act, interested persons need to file objections before the Collector within 30 days from the date of notification and as the petitioners did not file any objections, the issuance of 5-A notice does not arise. It is further stated that failure to mention the names of the petitioners in draft notification and draft declaration did not cause any loss to the petitioners’ rights and that any interested person can file objections in spite of absence of the mention of his name in the draft notification. 4. This Court, while ordering Rule Nisi on 30.4.2007, granted interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.11710 of 2007, staying all further proceedings pursuant to 4(1) notification dated 13.12.2005. By way of a common order dated 10.2.2009, this Court dismissed W.P.Nos.8124 and 9161 of 2007. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed W.P.M.P.No.7259 of 2009, seeking review of the said order dated 10.2.2009 and this Court, by virtue of an order dated 16.7.2009, allowed the said review, recalling the order dated 10.2.2009 and reopened the present Writ Petition. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to extract the penultimate paragraph of the said order, which reads as under: “Under those circumstances I am of the opinion that no consent was given by the parties for disposal of the writ petitions and the same were disposed of on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. Therefore, the writ petitions require to be heard in detail afresh for resolving all the issues involved. Therefore, the order under review requires to be recalled and accordingly the order passed on 10.2.2009 is recalled and the writ petitions stand reopened”. 5. Subsequently, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.13306 of 2010 passed the following order on 30.4.2010. “An interim order passed in a suit or writ petition would merge in the judgment, through which the suit or writ petition is disposed of, and in the event of the same being reviewed or set aside by the same court, the interim order shall revive. In the instant case, the writ petition was disposed of on 10.2.2009. However, that order was recalled, through order dated 16.7.2009 passed in the review petition. The natural consequence is that the interim order passed by this Court earlier must revive. The record discloses that interim order was granted by this Court on 30.4.2007. Hence, it is directed that the interim order granted by this Court on 30.4.2007 shall be in force, til the disposal of the writ petition”. 6. A significant aspect which needs mention at this juncture and which demonstrates the haste with which the authorities proceeded is that the present Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 10.2.2009 basing on the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and immediately on 11.2.2009 the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit-VI, ORR, HUDA Complex, Hyderabad passed Award and referred the matter to the Civil court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and deposited the compensation amount also. This attitude on the part of the respondent authorities, in the considered opinion of this Court, is highly preposterous, unreasonable and reprehensible and is obviously an attempt to frustrate and defeat the legitimate claim and grievance of the petitioners in the Writ Petition. Even as per the counter filed by the 3rd respondent before this court, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records in the year 2004 and in the instant case, the respondent authorities issued draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 13.12.2005, as such, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent authorities in not showing the names of the petitioners in the draft notification and draft declaration. Yet another statement in the additional counter dated 15.12.2008 that the question of giving notice under Section 5-A to the petitioners would not arise as they failed to file any objections is also highly unreasonable and having failed to show the names of the petitioners either in the draft notification or draft declaration in spite of revenue records showing their names, it would not be open to the respondent authorities to find fault with the petitioners herein. At this juncture, it is apt and appropriate to observe that the right to property is a constitutional right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which mandates, in clear and unequivocal terms, that no citizen should be deprived of his/her property, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 7. The Land Acquisition Act is an ex-propreitary legislation, which authorizes and empowers the State and its instrumentalities to compulsorily acquire the private lands without reference to the consent of the owners of the properties, as such the provisions of the said legislation are required to be adhered to and followed scrupulously, thoroughly and meticulously and any deviation from the statutory procedure would undoubtedly render the proceedings invalid. Another statement made in the additional counter affidavit by the 3rd respondent that non-mentioning of the names of the petitioners in the draft notification and draft declaration do not cause any los to the petitioners’ rights and any interested person can file objections even though their names did not find place in the draft notification, in the considered opinion of this Court is also highly objectionable and in derogation of the mandatory provisions of the legislation. It is a settled and well established proposition of law that the right given to the land owner under Section 5-A of the Act is a right akin to the fundamental right and the said right conferred by the legislature on the persons interested cannot be denied in a mechanical and routine manner. Therefore, denial of such right, in the instant case, would render the entire proceedings invalid and on the said ground itself, the entire proceedings which culminated in the impugned award are liable to be invalidated. 8. It is also relevant to mention certain developments which took place during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. The 2nd respondent- HUDA addressed a letter in Lr.No.3752/CGM/DGM-1/HGCL/BOT/AP- 1/07-08 dated 26.5.2012 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad. The sum and substance of the said letter is that the 2nd respondent requested the 1st respondent herein to grant necessary permission for allotment of alternate land situated at Kokapet village in favour of the petitioners as per the decision of the 7th Executive Committee Meeting of HMDA and the Government of A.P. responded to the same vide letter No.16850/12/2011 dated 26.7.2012 and permitted the 2nd respondent to allot the undeveloped land admeasuring Ac.00.17 ¼ guntas in Sy.Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet village per acre in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the 4th respondent herein addressed a letter dated 24.8.2013, informing the petitioners that the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed status quo orders in SLP (C) Nos.CC/9330-9331/2013 in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet village. The 4th respondent further informed that in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the lands in Sy.Nos.239 and 240 of Kokapet village cannot be allotted at present and also requested the options of the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the petitioners herein stated to have submitted a representation dated 12.1.2014, informing the Project Director, ORR Project, indicating options of the petitioners to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the 4th respondent-Special Deputy Collector addressed a letter to the learned Government Pleader to file a suitable memo for closure of O.P.No.433 of 2011 for taking further action while referring to the present Writ Petition. The memo dated 11.4.2014 filed by the 4th respondent before the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar is also placed on record by the learned counsel for petitioners, which is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4. In the said memo, the 4th respondent requested the said Court to close O.P.No.433 of 2011 and to return the same to the office of Referring Officer for taking further steps in the matter. A copy of the minutes of 18th Executive Committee Meeting of the 2nd respondent is also placed on record by the learned counsel for petitioners and item 40 of the said proceedings deals with the present issue and the same reads as under: “LA-ORRP-Ranga Reddy District – Rajendranagar mandal – Poppalguda village – Sy.No.296 & 298 – Request for cash compensation – Agenda Item - Submitted for approval – Reg. The Executive Committee noted that the land compensation is not feasible in view of Status quo orders of Supreme Court in the Kokapet land. As the petitioner is requesting for cash compensation, the Managing Director, HGCL and Project Director, ORR will take further necessary action for payment of compensation as per Land Acquisition Act, subject to the out-come of the cases pending in High Court and Lower Courts”. 9. The above narration and factual situation manifestly demonstrates that the impugned proceedings in the instant Writ Petition which culminated in the Award dated 11.2.2009 are neither sustainable nor tenable nor the same can stand for judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the impugned land acquisition proceedings are liable to be invalidated. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 13.12.2005 published in A.P. Gazette in ORR No.182 in File No.C/ORR/1099/2005, Draft Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14.8.2006 in File No.D/ORR/1099/2005 and the Award in Rc.No.81/ORR/LA/ Unit-VII/2005 dated 11.2.2009 passed by the 4th respondent in respect of lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.296, admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Puppalguda village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District. If the subject land is required to be acquired, the respondent authorities are at liberty to acquire the same under the relevant legislation. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date:02.6.2014 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.9161 of 2007 02.6.2014