IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.83 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order, dated 8-11-2004 in Writ Petition No.12514 of 1994 on the file of this Court). Between: The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. … Appellant. And: Danda Nookaraju, W/o.Venkata Rao, 68 years, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent. Counsel for the Appellant: G.P. for Land Acquisition. Counsel for the Respondent: Addepalli Suryanarayana. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.83 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) The respondent in Writ Petition No.12514 of 1994 filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by order, dated 8-11- 2001, passed by the learned single Judge. By the said order, the learned single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition, directed the appellant to treat the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) as 8-11-2001 instead of 1-2-1978 and take into consideration the fact that the possession was taken from the respondent on 30-4-1980. The learned Judge also directed the appellant to extend all other benefits in accordance with law. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the appellant, and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent. An extent of Ac.3.00 cents of land in Survey No.36/2 of Uppada Kottapalli village belonging to the respondent was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act. The respondent filed Writ Petition No.2642 of 1980 questioning initiation of the said proceedings. This Court by order, dated 7-12-1983, dismissed the Writ Petition, inter alia, on the ground that award was passed on 25-3-1980 and notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were issued on 4-4-1980. The learned single Judge also recorded a finding that possession was taken on 30-4-1980 and pattas were distributed to the beneficiaries on 21-6-1980. After lapse of substantial time, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.12514 of 1994 with the plea that though the appellant claimed that an award was passed on 25-3- 1980, neither an authenticated copy of the same was served on the respondent nor compensation under the purported award was paid. She specifically pleaded that her information revealed that there is no authenticated award available on record and that the award was not signed by any authority. The respondent also averred that after the death of her husband, she was going round the offices of the revenue officials for payment of compensation and got issued a notice on 23-4-1988, followed by a registered legal notice issued on 26-5- 1989. The respondent, therefore, prayed for a Mandamus to direct the appellant to pass a legal award determining compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, U.Kothapalli Mandal, it is stated that though the award was passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Kakinada, compensation could not be paid for want of copy of award. It was further pleaded that file relating to Award No.14 of 1980 containing 138 pages was sent to the Special Officer of the Government Pleaders’ Office, Hyderabad, on 30-8-1988 and that, despite the requests having been made, the file was not sent back by the Special Officer of the Government Pleaders’ office. It was admitted in the counter-affidavit that possession of the land was taken and pattas were distributed in the year 1980 and that compensation could not be paid for want of a copy of award. On the above-mentioned pleadings and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge held that as the award was stated to be not traceable, it should be construed that no award was passed. The learned Judge also held that, as the respondent-petitioner was deprived of the property as far back as the year 1980 and no compensation was paid, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should be treated as having been issued on 8-11-2001, instead of 1-2-1978, and that steps for payment of compensation under the provisions of the Act should be taken accordingly. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that in Writ Petition No.2642 of 1980 a categorical finding was rendered by this Court that award was passed on 25-3-1980 and that, therefore, it is not open to the respondent to take a contrary stand as the finding in the said Writ Petition binds her. The learned Government Pleader further stated that, as a valid award was passed in accordance with law, the learned single Judge was not correct in law in directing payment of compensation by assuming that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued at a later date. Opposing the contentions of the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when admittedly the legal award was not available on file and compensation was not paid on that ground, it is not permissible for the appellant to place reliance on a non-existent award and offer to pay compensation on such an award. We have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The Act provides for procedure for making an award. Under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector shall make an enquiry and pass an award in respect of the land acquired. The award so passed shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested under Section 12(1) of the Act. Under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Under Section 18 of the Act, any person interested, who has not accepted the award, may apply to the Collector in writing requiring him to refer the matter, inter alia, for determination of compensation to the competent civil Court. The said provision prescribes limitation for making such a request, which will commence from the date of passing/receipt of the award. Undoubtedly, in Writ Petition No.2642 of 1980 this Court rendered a finding that award was passed on 25- 3-1980. But the fact remains that neither the signed copy of the award, nor at least a duly authenticated copy of the same is available on record. According to the counter-affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, the record was sent to the Special Officer in the Government Pleaders’ office on 30-8-1988 and that the same was not received back from the said office. We have adjourned the case to enable the learned Government Pleader to produce the award. The learned Government Pleader reported that the file is not traceable. The fact, therefore, remains that there is no award available on file. Assuming that an award was passed, as recorded by this Court in Writ Petition No.2642 of 1980, such award shall be valid only if the requirements of Section 12 of the Act are complied with, viz., it shall be filed in the Collector’s office and the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. In the face of the admitted fact that the award is not available in the Collector’s office and in the absence of any evidence to show that notice of the award was actually given to the respondent or any person interested in the land, we are of the view that there is no legal award in existence in the instant case. In the absence of such a legal award, the right of the respondent to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act will get defeated because to seek reference of a dispute regarding adequacy of compensation, not only that the respondent should have an award with her but also that such a request shall be made within the time specified under Section 18 of the Act from the date of either passing of the award or communication of the award, as the case may be. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we agree with the finding of the learned single Judge that there is a necessity for passing of a fresh award and the appellant cannot fall back upon a non-existent award for the purpose of payment of compensation. Another aspect which requires to be considered is - whether the learned single Judge is justified in directing that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act shall be treated to have been issued on 8-11-2001 instead of on 1-2-1978 and compensation be calculated on that basis? The appellant has raised the specific plea that there were laches on the part of the respondent in approaching this Court. The respondent has, however, pleaded that during the lifetime of her husband he was going round the appellant and his subordinates and after his death she made efforts to convince him to pay the compensation. Undoubtedly, while the appellant is obligated to offer compensation to the respondent, the respondent should also be diligent in asserting her right within a reasonable time. In this view of the matter, we find laches on both sides. Since valuable property of the respondent was acquired without paying any compensation, we cannot completely non-suit the respondent merely on the ground that there was delay in her approaching this Court. In our considered view, interests of the parties will be balanced if the date of filing of the Writ Petition, viz., 11th July, 1994, is treated as the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and market value is fixed accordingly under the provisions of the Act. While we order accordingly, we direct the appellant to complete the proceedings and make payment of compensation to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above modification of the order of the learned single Judge, the Writ Appeal s disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.03-11-2009 MNR