IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10752 of 2002 Between: K. Venkayamma W/o. K. Raghavendra Rao R/o. Pedamaddali Village, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District. 2 Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. 4 A.P. Industrial Infrastricture Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....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, order or direction, (a) declaring the 4(1) notiﬁcation published in the Krishna A.P. Gazette issue No.6/KST/95, dated 28-4-95 so far as it pertains to an extent of Ac.1.35 1/2 cents in R.S.No.80/2A, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandalam, Krishna District as invalid. (b) to declare the award 4/96 dated 23-5-96 as not binding on the petitioner in so far as it relates to Ac.1.35 1/2 cents in R.S.No.80/2A, Kanuru Village Penamaluru Mandalam, Krishna District, (c) to direct the respondents to put the petitioner back in possession of Ac.1-35 1/2 cents in R.S.No.80/2A Kanuru Village, Panamaluru Mandal, or in the alternative to direct the respondents to issue a fresh notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) and to pass an award so far as it pertains to the petitioner's property of an extent of Ac.1.351/2 cents in R.S.No.80/2A, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and Award No.4/96, dated 23.05.1996 in respect of Acs.1.35 ½ cents comprised in R.S.No.80/2A of Kanuru Village, Panamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner sought for a direction to put her back in possession of the said land or in the alternative to direct the respondents to issue fresh notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. The abovementioned land was notiﬁed for acquisition for the purpose of respondent No.4- Corporation. A consent award was passed on 23.05.1996. As there was a dispute regarding entitlement to receive the compensation between the petitioner and her brother by name Vuppaluri Venkateswara Rao, the same was referred to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer under Section 30 of the Act. The said dispute was taken on ﬁle as L.A.O.P.No.87 of 1997 and disposed of by order dated 2.05.2002 wherein the civil Court held that the petitioner and her brother are entitled to equal shares of compensation in respect of Acs.2.71 cents out of Acs.3.59 cents in R.S.No.80/2A of Kanuru Village. Thereafter, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition for the abovementioned reliefs. At the hearing Sri K. V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, who is not the District Collector, is illegal. He also contended that the consent award passed on the basis of the consent given by the brother of the petitioner, namely, Vuppaluri Venkateswara Rao, is liable to be set aside to the extent of the petitioner’s share, because she did not give her consent. He therefore submitted that the award is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that since the possession was not lawfully taken, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. With respect to the contention relating to the issuance of notiﬁcation, the learned Assistant Government Pleader produced record before this Court, which shows that the District Collector, Krishna District issued the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under Section 3-A of the Act appropriate Government is empowered to delegate its powers to the District Collectors. After coming to know about the fact that the District Collector issued the notiﬁcation, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded on this point. With regard to the validity of the award, it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was the registered and reputed owner of the property. Though by the time of issuance of notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act he died, obviously due to non-mutation of names of the successors in interest, his name was shown in the notiﬁcation. The brother of the petitioner participated in the acquisition proceedings including award enquiry on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by his father. The award was passed for the entire land of Acs.115.94 cents on the basis of the consents obtained from the owners of the lands. On the basis of the Will, the brother of the petitioner also gave his consent for the lands in question. Acting on the said consent, the extent of Acs.3.59 cents in R.S.No.80/2A was also included in the consent award. However, later the civil Court declared the right of the petitioner to receive 50% of compensation by disbelieving the Will propound by the brother of the petitioner. On these facts of the case, though technically it can be said that the consent given by the brother of the petitioner is not binding on her, such a contention cannot be accepted for the purpose of invalidating the entire acquisition proceedings including the award. As on the date of passing of the award, the Land Acquisition oﬃcer acted bona ﬁde by considering the Will and treating the brother of the petitioner as the owner of the property. Therefore, I am not prepared to declare the award as illegal. However, the fact remains that on the basis of the consent given by the brother of the petitioner, the petitioner is made to receive the compensation amount. But for the consent given by her brother she would have been free to approach the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act by seeking reference of the dispute to the civil Court. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot be denied such a valuable legal right on the basis of the consent given by her brother, who had no right to represent her. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that taking of possession itself was illegal, I cannot accept such contention at this length of time, because, admittedly possession was taken in the year 1996. Even though the civil Court declared her right to half share in the property later that would not have deterred the petitioner from questioning the action of the respondents in taking alleged illegal possession of the land. Having not challenged such an action for more than six years, the claim of the petitioner in this regard is barred by laches. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to make an application to respondent No.2 for reference under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil Court for enhancement of compensation under the impugned award. If such an application is ﬁled by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, respondent No.2 shall refer the same to the competent civil Court without raising an objection regarding limitation. On such reference, the civil Court shall decide the claim of the petitioner on merits. ________________________ (C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.) 3rd November, 2008 Js.