*THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.6556 of 2000 % Dated: 13-10-2008. #Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao and another. … Petitioners Vs. $ Land Acquisition Officer and Rural Development Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District and four others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Ramshah. ^ Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition for R.1 & R.4. None for R.2,,3 and 5. < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: Nil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.6556 of 2000 Between: Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao and another. … Petitioners And Land Acquisition Officer and Rural Development Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.Ramshah. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition for R.1 & R.4. None for R.2,,3 and 5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 in respect of Ac.0.24 cents of land belonging to the petitioners comprised in Survey Nos.253/3 and 253/4 of Gunupudi village, Bheemavaram Municipal limits, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claimed to have purchased Ac.0.24 cents (1161 Sq. yards) of land in Revenue Survey Nos.253/3 and 253/4 of Gunupudi village, for a sum of Rs.3,600/- under registered sale deed dated 22-6-1977. They averred that in the ﬁrst quarter of 1997 when the petitioners went to the land they found that a part of their land was being converted into a road and stones were planted in the other portion; that their enquiries revealed that a part of their land was acquired for laying internal road to the proposed Housing Board Colony in the adjoining land; and that the petitioners addressed letter dated 11-3-1997 to respondent No.1 requesting him to demarcate the boundaries of the portion of the petitioners’ land taken over and also of the remaining land and to pay the compensation for the land taken over for the road. It is further averred that in reply to the said letter, respondent No.1 (Sub- Collector) sent notice dated 27-3-1997 informing the petitioners that he would visit the land on 1- 4-1997, but he did not visit the said land. The petitioners assailed the action of the respondents in taking over the land without following due process of law. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 it is averred that possession of the land in R.S.Nos.253/3 and 253/4 was taken by the A.P. Housing Board, respondent No.5 herein, on 12-5- 1982 and award was passed on 30-9-1994. It is further stated that the petitioners neither questioned the land acquisition proceedings nor claimed compensation; that the land admeasuring Ac.31.12 cents was handed over to respondent No.5; and that despite the intimation given by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer on 27-3- 1997 that inspection will be made on 1-4-1997, the petitioners have not turned up on the said date. It is also stated that advance possession was taken on 12-5-1982, award was passed on 30-9-1994, and respondent No.5 constructed houses thereon for the beneﬁt of the general public. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 it is stated that notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was issued for acquisition of Ac.41.03 cents in R.S.Nos.257/2A, 259/1 etc., of Gunupudi village, Bhimavaram Mandal, in the year 1979; that as the said proceedings were quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3344 of 1984 giving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, fresh proposals were initiated, which have also got lapsed on 7-5-1993; that consequent upon further directions given by this Court by order dated 6-12-1996 passed in Writ Petition No.11827 of 1999, further proceedings were initiated by issuing notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act on 10-11-1993 and dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act; and that award was passed on 30-9-1994 ﬁxing the market value at Rs.7,02,000/- per acre. It is further stated that market value was ﬁxed on the basis of the negotiations under the A.P. Land Acquisition Negotiation Rules, 1992 (for short “the Rules”) read with the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.1050 dated 17-10-1992. It is further stated that the land owners for an extent of Ac.0.47¾ cents in R.S.Nos.260/2 and 260/4 did not give consent for acquisition of their lands; that an extent of Ac.0.40¼ cents in R.S.Nso.252/1,252/3, 253/3, 4 and 5, 255/2 and 3, 260/1 and 260/4 was not claimed by anybody; and that award under Section 11(2) of the Act was also passed in respect of the extent of land for which the land owners did not give their consent and also for the unclaimed extent of the land, and the proceeds were kept in civil deposit to be paid to the owners as and when they claim the same. In paragraph 11 of the counter- aﬃdavit it is stated that 12 house plots remained vacant and it was decided to dispose of the said plots by public auction proposed to be conducted on 24-4-2000; and that as the petitioners ﬁled the present Writ Petition, the proposed auction could not be conducted. Sri P. Ramshah, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that admittedly the petitioners are the registered owners of Ac.0.24 cents, but their names were not shown in the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and no notices were served on them either under Section 9(3) or under Section 10 to enable them to question the land acquisition proceedings and ﬁle their objections. He further submitted that a consent award can be passed under Section 11(2) of the Act only on the basis of the consensus arrived at by the land owners with the members of the negotiating committee constituted under the Rules; and that even according to the admission of the respondents no consent has been given in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners; and that, therefore, passing of a consent award is wholly illegal and unsustainable. He also submitted that except the land in question, which was purchased by the petitioners for the purpose of constructing houses for their personal occupation, no other land is left with the petitioners and it is wholly inequitable to deny the entire land to them in order to provide houses to other members of the general public. He relied upon Section 38 (c) of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short “the 1956 Act”) which enables the Housing Board to allot a plot to the dispossessed owner of a land in furtherance of a housing scheme. At the hearing, no one represented respondent No.5-A.P.Housing Board. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed before me the record, which clearly shows that in respect of the entire extent of Ac.31.12 cents a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act was passed. Indisputably, the petitioners are the registered owners of the property in question and their names are not shown in the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that the petitioners’ names were not mutated in the revenue records, in my opinion, that by itself does not oﬀer a reasonable excuse for the land acquisition oﬃcer to ignore the claims of the actual owners of the property. The Land Acquisition oﬃcer is expected to gather information from the Sub-Registrar’s oﬃce to know whether any registered sale transactions have taken place in respect of the property before the same is notiﬁed for acquisition. Thus, mere absence of mutation in revenue records does not absolve the land acquisition oﬃcer from the obligation of collecting the necessary information as to the true owner of the property at the time of issuing notiﬁcation. There is, therefore, some justiﬁcation for the petitioners in complaining that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated behind their back. The records also do not show that notices were served on the petitioners under Section 9(3) of the Act. Be that as it may, I am unable to countenance the stand taken by the respondents that though some of the land owners have not given their consent, still a consent award was passed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Such an action is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Unless the parties agree for a particular quantum of compensation, it is incumbent upon the land acquisition oﬃcer to pass an award under Section 11(1) of the Act, which gives right to the owners of the land to seek reference of the dispute regarding the quantum of compensation to a competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. On the respondents’ own admission, the land acquisition oﬃcer failed to pass an award under Section 11(1) of the Act in respect of the land of the petitioners. The award, which is patently illegal, is, therefore, liable to be quashed insofar as it pertains to Ac.0.24 cents of the land of the petitioners is concerned. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are not justiﬁed in acquiring the entire land of the petitioners for the ostensible purpose of providing house sites to the general public while denying them the opportunity of constructing houses for their own personal occupation. I see force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Shelter is one of the essential amenities for a human being. In recognition of this necessity, respondent No.5 has been involved in the activity of acquiring lands and providing houses to diﬀerent categories of members of the public. By acquiring the entire extent of Ac.0.24 cents without leaving any part of the land for the petitioners’ personal occupation, they are deprived of the basic necessity of shelter; while, ironically, their land was acquired for providing shelter to others. The petitioners are, thus, virtually rendered shelterless. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondents 2 and 3 they have admitted that 12 house plots are still remaining vacant and they are proposed to be put to public auction. Under Section 38 (c) of the 1956 Act, the Housing scheme may, inter alia, provide for the allotment of a plot to any owner dispossessed of a land in furtherance of the housing scheme. In my considered view, the case of the petitioners eminently deserves to be considered under this provision, as that would enable the petitioners to construct houses of their own. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed in the following terms: 1) Award dated 30-9-1994 is set aside to the extent of Ac.0.24 cents of land belonging to the petitioners; 2) Liberty is given to the respondents to pass a fresh award after giving notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act to the petitioners; 3) The petitioners are permitted to make representations within four weeks from today to respondent No.2 for allotment of one plot each out of the 12 plots, which are vacant and proposed to be auctioned by it; and 4) On such application being received from the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall consider their request for allotment of one plot each, in the light of the observations made hereinabove and the provisions of Section 38 (c) of the 1956 Act within a period of eight weeks thereafter. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 13-10-2008 MNR LR copies to be marked.