HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2005 Thursday, the Seventeenth day of February, Two Thousand and Eleven Between S.Vijayalakshmi and others Petitioners AND The District Collector, Anantapur District and another Respondents COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are the owners of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.46 cents in Sy. No. 436-1 of Hindupur village and Mandal, Anantapur District. It is stated that they are totally dependant on the said land for their livelihood. The value of the adjacent land in Sy. No. 438-8 and 438-2 is Rs.8,38,600/-. While so, the respondents have issued notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity the Act) seeking to acquire the said land for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections and declaration under Sec.6(1) was also published to the effect that the land is required for establishing Autonagar, Hindupur. Questioning the said notification, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 25791 of 2002 and a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 9.8.2003 allowed the writ petition on some technical ground. Thereafter, the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was published in the month of January, 2004 for the purpose of extension of Autonagar, Hindupur town, invoking urgency clause dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act in exercise of the powers under Sec. 17(4) of the Act. It is stated that they have not been dispossessed and they are retaining physical possession of the land in question. It is further stated that the respondent have fixed the value of the land at Rs.50,000/- per acre without any basis. Accordingly they filed the writ of certiorari calling for the records in relation to the notification published in the newspapers on 25.1.2004 and also draft declaration published under Sec. 6 of the Act on 19.1.2004 and to consequently quash the same. A petition was also filed to dispense with the filing of original gazette said to have been published under Sec. 4(1) as well as declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act. Nowhere in the writ petition it is stated as to when the declaration under Sec. 6(1) of the Act was published even after filing of the writ petition. The petitioners have filed an application seeking to stay all further proceedings, pursuant to Sec.4(1) notification published on 25.1.2004 and the said application was dismissed by order dated 28.11.2005 on the ground that the writ petition was filed a year after the publication of Sec. 4(1) notification and draft declaration. A counter is filed by the respondents stating that the notification under Sec.4 (1) was published in two Telugu daily newspapers on 19.1.2004 and 21.1.2004 and after publication of the draft notification and draft declaration, preliminary valuation proposals have been submitted and got approved by the Collector, Anantapur, who also permitted the Revenue Divisional Officer to handover advance possession to the requisition department duly paying 80% of the compensation to the land owners. Accordingly, 80% of the land compensation amount i.e. Rs.3,01,148/- in respect of the Sy. No.436-1 and 436-3 was drawn and effected payment to the land owners of Sy. No. 463-3, but the writ petitioners did not turn up to receive the payment and filed the present writ petition in January, 2005. The further allegation of escalated value of the land is disputed. It is stated that the petitioners have refused to receive the notices and, therefore, the notification under Sec.12(2) of the Act had to be affixed on the doors of the houses of the petitioners. It is also stated that in view of the request of the requisition department to handover possession to take up developmental activities like formation of roads, etc. the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hindupur, handed over possession of the said land to the authorities of A.P.I.I.C. on 27.10.2004 and the developmental activities are in progress by laying internal roads, etc. Hence, it is stated that the contention of the petitioners that there was no urgency to invoke the urgency clause is untenable. The said counter was sworn in as long back as on 25.11.2006, but no reply had been filed disputing the said averments. Therefore, it cannot be said that the possession was not taken, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader also produced the relevant extract of record i.e. letter Rc. No. 624/01 dated 16.12.2004 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hindupur, to the effect that after approval of the draft notification and draft declaration, P.V. proposals were sent to the Joint Collector, Anantapur for approval, which were also approved vide proceedings G1/2243/2004 dated 7.11.2004 and accordingly, 80% of the awarded amount was also paid to some of the pattedars and the requisition department has to take possession and ultimately, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda has directed to handover possession of the lands to the Assistant Zonal Manager, APIIC, Hindupur. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, handed over the possession of the land in question to the Assistant Zonal Manager, APIIC, Hindupur, as per the certificate of handing over the land dated 29.12.2004. Copy of the receipt showing payment of compensation to various pattedars is also filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the possession of the lands in question is still with the petitioners. In so far as the legal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of Sec. 11-A of the Act inasmuch as award was not passed within a period of two years from the date of draft declaration under Sec. 6(1) of the Act is concerned, it is stated that Section 11-A of the Act has no application wherever urgency clause under Sec. 17(4) of the Act was invoked and the possession was taken, as has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Municipal Administration & Urban Development (A- 3) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another Vs. Mohd. Moinudidn Hussain and others ([1]). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision Awadh Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar ([2]) held that where the Government has taken possession of the land invoking the provisions under Sec. 17(1) of the Act, it is not open for the Government to withdraw the acquisition proceedings and as such Section 11-A of the Act is not attracted and the acquisition proceedings would not lapse, even if it is assumed that no award was made within the period prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid settled principle, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed more particularly, when no reply was filed to the counter with regard to the specific contention of the respondents that possession of the land in question was already taken. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah February 17, 2011 MAS [1] 1998(4) ALT 554(D.B) [2] AIR 1996 SC 122