HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 08-12-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1411 OF 2009 Between: Kola China Guruvaiah and nine others ... APPELLANTS AND The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1411 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal arises out of order dated 04-11-2009 in Writ Petition No. 14569 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. An extent of Acs.18.34 guntas of land belonging to the appellants was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites under Indiramma Scheme. Even before proceedings were formally initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the appellants have given their consent in writing on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.20/-. Thereafter, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 07-07-2008. In view of the agreement between the parties, enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was dispensed with. The appellants have executed Forms III and IV, as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992 (for short, ‘the Rules’), which empowered the committee constituted under the Rules to negotiate with the landowners and pass a consent award under Section 11 (2) of the Act. The consent award was passed on 29-06-2009 awarding Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. This award has been questioned in Writ Petition No. 14569 of 2009. The main contention raised by the appellants before the learned single Judge was that they never gave their consent out of their free will and that the signatures/thumb impressions subscribed by them on certain blank papers were used for the purpose of passing the purported consent award. The learned single Judge having considered the facts borne out by the record rejected the contentions of the appellants and dismissed the writ petition. At the hearing, Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the so-called consent given by the appellants in Forms III and IV was not legally binding on the appellants because their signatures were obtained by misleading them. He submitted that had proper consent been given by the appellants, the respondents would not have issued Form I on 12-06-2009, which was much subsequent to the purported consent obtained by the respondents from the appellants. The learned counsel also submitted that there is some inconsistency with respect to the date of award. He submitted that while the award is stated to have been passed on 29-06-2009, the notice of award issued under Section 12 (2) indicated 30-06-2009 as the date on which the award was stated to have been passed. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition opposed the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that even before the land acquisition proceedings were formally initiated, the appellants have given their willingness in writing on a non-judicial stamp paper on 20-12-2007, wherein they agreed for parting with the land on payment of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. He further submitted that in view of the agreement reached between the appellants and the respondents, the subsequent procedure remained a mere formality and that in order to complete the formalities, Form I was shown to have been issued on 12-06-2009. He therefore stated that even if there is some inconsistency in the dates, the same will not vitiate the consent given by the appellants and the award passed on the basis of such consent. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The affidavit dated 20-12-2007, which is in vernacular has been carefully read by one of us (C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J). It is clearly stated therein that while the market value of the land is around Rs.10,00,000/-, the appellants are agreeable to give away their lands if they are paid at least Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. The fact that the appellants have voluntarily given this affidavit with their signatures affixed thereon is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants. But, he submitted that the said affidavit does not constitute a concluded contract. But in the wake of the controversy raised by the appellants that they have not given their consent out of their free will to part with the land at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre, the above mentioned affidavit assumes importance. From the above affidavit, it is clear that the appellants wanted to give away their lands at least at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. In tune with this affidavit, the appellants have executed Forms III and IV as prescribed under the Rules. A perusal of Form III clearly shows that below clause 24 of the Form, a table was prepared with different columns. The last column is meant for the signature of the awardees. We find from this table that each of the appellants has either affixed his or her thumb impression or subscribed signature in the box designated for the same. Had signatures or thumb impressions been obtained on blank papers, it is not possible for preparing a statement so as to see that these signatures or thumb impressions remain within their respective boxes. We also do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that since most of the appellants are illiterates they were taken in by the assurances given by the respondents in subscribing their thumb impressions. A verification of Forms III and IV would reveal that more than 50% of the landowners have put their signatures either in Telugu or English, which clearly suggests that they are not illiterates to be misguided by the executive authorities. The only circumstance on the basis of which the learned counsel for the appellants emphasized that the signatures or thumb impressions were obtained deceptively was that Form I notice which was the genesis for negotiations was issued much later than the execution of Forms III and IV. As already noted, the learned Government Pleader has given the explanation saying that in order to complete the formalities, Form I was issued at a later date though the negotiations were initiated far prior to the issuance of Form II notice on the basis of the affidavit given by the landowners as far back as 20-12-2007. Though there appears to be some procedural irregularity in the award proceedings, but having regard to the unequivocal willingness conveyed by the appellants to part with their lands at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre, this procedural irregularity will not vitiate the consent award. Similarly, the inconsistency in the date mentioned in the award and the notice of award also does not invalidate the consent award. In our view, the learned single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2932 of 2009, filed by the appellants for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08-12-2009 ks