THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.27688 of 1998 Dated: 24.04.2007 Between: Ch.Rama Sai Baba and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.27688 of 1998 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notices dated 01.09.1998 to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their houses in R.S.Nos.740 and 778 situated at Chintalapudi in West Godavari District. Petitioners claim to be absolute owners of various extents of land in R.S.Nos.740 and 778 situated at Chintalapudi in West Godavari District, and they allege to have been eking out their livelihood by doing agriculture in the said lands. However, the Government proposed to acquire an extent of Acs.8.82 cents out of the said land for the purpose of construction of agriculture market yard, by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), which was published in the Gazette on 04.11.1993. Urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and thereby enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 30.12.1993. When notices were issued to the petitioners directing them to appear for the award enquiry, petitioners filed W.P.No.12243 of 1994 and the same was allowed on 11.06.1996 quashing the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and directing the respondents to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Pursuant to that petitioners filed objections. However, the respondents issued the impugned notices dated 01.09.1998 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act directing the petitioners to appear for award enquiry. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that though their nearby land owners are willing to surrender their lands, instead of acquiring their lands, the respondents are proceeding to acquire the lands of the petitioners, and that despite the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by them to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, no such enquiry was conducted, instead the impugned notices were issued. Hence, this writ petition. The third respondent filed counter stating that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.12243 of 1994, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and the objections of the petitioners were duly considered. However, as the petitioners’ lands are abutting Chintalapudi and Eluru road, their lands were selected keeping in view the road approach for the convenience of vehicular movement for transportation of agricultural produces to the market yard. Petitioners were given notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, but they did not attend the award enquiry, and therefore, the procedure prescribed under the Act was followed and the award under Section 11(1) of the Act would be passed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and also the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. A perusal of the record shows that this writ petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court and the learned Judge, after hearing both the counsel, dismissed the same on 11.10.2000 and a writ appeal, being W.A.No.1110 of 2001, was filed and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said writ appeal on 30.07.2001 and remitted this matter back for consideration afresh. The bone of contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite the fact that this Court in unequivocal terms directed the respondents to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, petitioners were not served with any notices and also no such enquiry was conducted. The learned Government Pleader, reiterating the contentions put forth in the counter, stated that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.12243 of 1994, enquiry was conducted and thereafter, fresh draft declaration was issued on 15.01.1997 and notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued on 01.09.1998. He further stated that after considering the objections of the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer decided that the lands in question are invariably required for construction of agriculture market yard, in view of their location and geographical features, such as road frontage etc., attached to the lands. Having considered the entire material and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that the respondents have not conducted any enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. If really any enquiry was conducted, nothing prevented the respondents in mentioning about the date on which the said enquiry was conducted. In fact, in the counter also there is no mention about the date on which enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted, and no record is produced to that effect. Further, this Court, while issuing rule nisi and granting interim direction that the structures found on the lands in question shall not be removed till 15.10.1998, specifically directed that the other proceedings with regard to the acquisition of the lands in question shall go on. The purpose of giving the said direction is to see that Award shall be passed within a period of two years. As no record is produced establishing that Award was passed within a period of two years, as provided for under the Statute, this Court is of the view that the entire acquisition proceedings got lapsed. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the notification issued under Section 4(1), which was published in the Gazette on 04.11.1993, proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners, and the consequential proceedings issued under the Act are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that if the respondents so desire to acquire the lands of the petitioners, they are at liberty to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 24.04.2007 sh