HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.966 of 2003 DATE:24-11-2010 BETWEEN Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, I & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others. …Appellants AND Smt.M.Jayapradha & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.966 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P.No.8730 of 1999, dated 22.4.1999 whereunder a consent order was passed allowing the writ petition directing the respondents-writ appellants to complete the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’) and pass an award within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order with a further direction to intimate the writ petitioners-respondents herein by way of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act having passed the award pursuant to the directions of the Court, and that on such notice, it is open to the writ petitioners to avail such remedies that may be available to them in law, in case, they are not satisfied with the amount of compensation to be fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Sub-section (3) of Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, bars filing of an appeal against the decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that an extent of Ac.9.41 cents of land belonging to them was acquired for formation of CADA road from 7/02 to 0/10 within the limits of Lingagiri Village by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 2.11.1981. Whereas possession of the land was taken earlier to that date. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the compensation both as on 1.7.1953 and also as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 27.10.1994, but the compensation, so far, has not been paid to them nor any notice of the passing of award was issued. Therefore, the writ petitioners sought for a direction to the writ appellants to pay the compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as per the award No.2/1996-1997, dated 13.9.1996 by declaring the application of provisions of the Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act 32 of 1956 for the acquired lands in Award No.2/1996-1997, dated 13.9.1996 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as illegal and arbitrary. We have perused the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 17.11.1990, but on disbandment of LA.CADA unit, Tekulapally, the subsidiary work of the scheme has been entrusted to the present unit. Therefore, draft notification and draft proposals submitted to the office of Land Acquisition Officer were approved in G.O.Rt.No.1052, dated 1.10.1994 and Memo No.38669, dated 5.10.1994 and was published in A.P.Gazette issue No.33, dated 27.10.1994, that the substance was also published in the village on 23.11.1994, and that the same have also been published in two daily newspapers; one in Pledge on 7.11.1994 and in D.D. on 8.11.1994. Therefore, the last such publication of the notification was only on 23.11.1994 and the said date of publication in the newspapers should be taken into consideration for determination of the compensation. Further once the possession was not taken pursuant to the issuance of the notification, the earlier notification which was published in the Gazette was lapsed for non-publication in the newspapers, which necessitated to issue further notification in the year 1994. If that be the case, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3274-75 of 2003, dated 10.8.2005, on which reliance is placed, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further there is no dispute that the possession was taken earlier to the issuance of the notification, but not on issuance of the notification, therefore, it cannot be treated that the possession was taken in compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer is under obligation to pass an award as consented by him before the learned Single Judge of this Court, which resulted in passing the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader for appellants also submits that the record does not indicate about issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act or payment of the compensation, which has not been paid to the claimants. If that be the case, it is always open for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award and pay the amount due to the claimants and on issuance of the notice, it is open for the parties to work out remedies or seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. Under those circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition. We see no merits in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2010 Tsr.