IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14995 of 2008 Between: 1 Nunna Venkataramana, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Uyyalavada, Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District. 2 nunna Bharathi, W/o. Venkataramana, R/o. Uyyalavada, Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Warangal, Warangal District. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad, Warangal district. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notiﬁcation issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 1-6-2007 in Gazette No.WGL/LA/14/2007 published in Indian Express daily News Paper dated 21-6-2007 and also the consequential Award dated 17-6-2008 in Rc.No.A/1427/2006 passed by the 3rd respondent as illegal, and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently pass the orders to set aside the aforesaid Notification as well as the Award passed by the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : *THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI + WRIT PETITION No.14995 OF 2008 % 09/09/2008 # 1. Nunna Venkataramana and another .. Petitioners Vs. $ 1. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector, Warangal District and others. .. Respondents < Gist > Head Note: ! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N.Subba Reddy, Senior Counsel Sri A. Prabhakar Rao ^ Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Irrigation & CAD, G.P. for Home G.P. for Land Acquisition Cases referred : [1] 1979 (1) ALT 65 2 1980 (1) APLJ 437 (D.B.) 3 2008 (2) SCALE 271 4 (1997)2 SCC 627 5 (2000) 2 SCC 48 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14995 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.300/E and Ac.4.24 guntas in Sy.No.300/A of Dornakal Village and Mandal, Warangal District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 29.3.1997. It is claimed that they were also issued pattadar pass books on 18.6.2007 by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dornakal. While so, on 9.7.2008 when there was an attempt to dispossess them by the oﬃcials of the respondents, they came to know that Ac.1-19 ½ guntas out of their land situated in Sy.No.300/A was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for the purpose of construction of a Summer Storage Tank. On enquiry, it was found that the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in local dailies dated 21.6.2007 and the award was also passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer on 17.6.2008 ﬁxing the compensation. However, since the names of the petitioners were not reﬂected either as owners or possessors in the notiﬁcation, there was no notice to them at any point of time. Even the award enquiry was concluded behind their back. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that the notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 1.6.2007 as well as the consequential award dated 17.6.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent are arbitrary and illegal. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District, ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating that as per the Sub-Divisional Record, the patta land coming under acquisition for construction of Summer Storage Tank at Dornakal Village included 17 guntas out of Ac.15.26 guntas in Sy.No.290 and Ac.1.19 ½ guntas out of Ac.17.14 guntas of land in Sy.No.300. Accordingly, the draft notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 1.6.2007 and the same was also published in the local dailies and locality on 21.6.2007 and 27.6.2007 respectively. In view of the urgency involved, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 12.7.2007. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer issued a notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act on 10.4.2008 to all the interested persons asking them to attend before the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer on 25.4.2008 and to show their nature of the claim and interest over the land under acquisition. Such notices were also issued to all the pattadars, occupants and enjoyers as per enjoyment survey asking them to attend enquiry on 25.4.2008 and establish their title over the land in question. However, so far as the land in Sy.No.300 is concerned, none appeared before the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. In the circumstances, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer again issued a notice on 26.4.2008 calling upon them to attend the award enquiry on 29.4.2008. Since there was no response and none appeared so far as the land situated in Sy.No.300 is concerned, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer submitted draft award proposals to the District Collector, Warangal for approval on 30.4.2008. The same was approved on 16.6.2008 and accordingly the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer passed an award on 17.6.2008 and issued the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act to the pattadars/enjoyers as per the enjoyment survey on 17.6.2008 calling upon them to receive compensation within 7 days. The Pattadars of the land situated in Sy.No.290, who also participated in the award enquiry, appeared before the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and received compensation in respect of their land. However, so far as the land situated in Sy.No.300 is concerned, none appeared. Therefore, the compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer in respect of Ac.1.19 ½ guntas situated in Sy.No.300 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad on 25.6.2008. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed on 11.7.2008. It is further stated that so far as 20 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.300/A and 11 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.300/E, in respect of which the petitioners claim title, notices were issued by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer to one Nunna Jayaprada, Bheemarapu Mangayya who were shown as enjoyers and occupiers as per the enjoyment survey. Both of them failed to attend the award enquiry in spite of repeated notices. The names of the petitioners were not found in the revenue record as pattadars or occupiers or enjoyers. Hence, their names were not notiﬁed in the notiﬁcation and award enquiry notices could not be issued to them. It is further stated that even assuming that the petitioners purchased the lands in the year 1997 they failed to take any steps to get their names mutated in the revenue records by the time of issuance of the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. The survey and sub- division work, including enjoyment survey i.e., identiﬁcation of the enjoyers of the land on the spot, took place in the year 2006 and as per the said survey Sri Gaddam Narasaiah, Smt. Nunna Jayaprada, Sri Bheemarapu Mangaiah and Sri Kotha Lingaiah were found as enjoyers of diﬀerent extents of land situated in Sy.No.300. It was also found that Smt. Nunna Jayaprada ﬁled O.S.No.181 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad against one K. Thirupathi Reddy and obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 27.6.2006 restraining him from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the land in Sy.No.300/A1 to an extent of Ac.4.24 guntas. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question since 1997 is unfounded and there is no other record to certify the petitioners’ ownership since 1997. Therefore, there is no illegality in publishing 4 (1) notiﬁcation without mentioning the names of the petitioners. It is further explained that the award enquiry notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 in Form-6 and the notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 in Form-7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to all the pattadars, occupants and enjoyers as per Pahani and enjoyment survey twice on 10.4.2008 and 26.4.2008 calling upon them to attend the enquiry along with documentary evidence to support the ownership rights claimed by them. Notices in Form-6 were aﬃxed on the notice-board of the Tahsildar Oﬃce, Dornakal, MPDO Oﬃce, Dornakala, O/o. the Executive Oﬃcer, Gram Panchayat Dornakal and Station House Oﬃcer, Dornakal on 17.4.2008 and 27.4.2008. Since there was no response, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, passed the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was deposited in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri N. Subba Reddy appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. As could be seen from the material on record, admittedly the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act did not reﬂect the names of the petitioners herein. Consequently the petitioners had no notice of the award enquiry and the award dated 17.6.2008 was passed in their absence. However, the speciﬁc case of the respondents is that as per the enjoyment survey, the petitioners were not found to be either as occupants or enjoyers. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioners to show that the mutation was eﬀected in the revenue records entering their names by the date of Section 4(1) notiﬁcation and Section 6 declaration. It is also clear from the details furnished in the counter-aﬃdavit by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer that the names of Smt. Nunna Jayaprada and Sri Bheemarapu Mangaiah, who were found in the enjoyment survey as occupants and enjoyers, were mentioned in the draft notiﬁcation and draft declaration. The notices in the award enquiry were also issued in the names of the said persons. Hence, the impugned notiﬁcation and the award cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that the names of the petitioners were not mentioned. However, the learned Senior Counsel while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in VAJJA KOTESWARA RAO vs. GOVT. OF A.P., SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT.[1] contended that the award dated 17.6.2008 is liable to be quashed since admittedly the said award was passed behind back of the petitioners and consequently there shall be a direction to the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer to proceed from the stage of the enquiry under Section 9 (3) of the Act. In VAJJA KOTESWARA RAO’S case (1 supra) the names of the petitioners therein who were claiming title to the land acquired was not mentioned in the notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. When the acquisition proceedings were challenged on that ground, this Court while negativing the said contention, held that from the mere fact that the name of the owner of the land was not mentioned in Section 4 (1) or Section 6 Notiﬁcations, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings were bad since Section 4 (1) or Section 6 do not contemplate giving the names of the persons owning the land. However, it was added that suﬃcient particulars of the land in the locality should be given in the notiﬁcation, so that people who are interested in the land may know of it. While concluding that the test is whether the persons interested in the land can come to know of the proceedings, the writ petition was dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 to 5 therein were concerned. So far as the 6th petitioner therein was concerned, having found that there was no notice to him even during award enquiry either under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Act, this Court held that the award as against the 6th petitioner was not valid. Accordingly, the proceedings from that stage as against the 6th petitioner were quashed directing the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer to give a notice to him under Section 9 (3) of the Act and proceed from that stage and pass a separate award so far as the 6th petitioner therein was concerned. At the outset, it is to be noted that in VAJJA KOTESWARA RAO’S case (1 supra) the name of the 6th petitioner therein was admittedly ﬁgured in the revenue records by the date of draft notification itself. Hence, this Court while holding that service of notice under Section 9 of the Act was necessary to the persons interested in the land, set aside the award as against the 6th petitioner therein. In the instant case, even according to the petitioners, the mutation in the revenue records by including their names was aﬀected only on 18.6.2007 whereas the notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published prior to that on 1.6.2007. Admittedly, the notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the persons whose names were shown as pattadars, enjoyers and occupiers in the revenue records. In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be placed on par with the 6th petitioner in VAJJA KOTESWARA RAO’S case (1 supra) and the award cannot be set aside on the ground that the notice under Section 9 of the Act was not served on the petitioners. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner cited yet another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CLASS IV EMPLOYEES BULDG. SOCIETY v. T.V. REDDY [2] wherein it was held that the award which was not bona ﬁde and no opportunity was given to the occupier to make his claim for compensation is bad. It is a case where a ﬁnding was recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties that no notice was served under Section 9(3) of the Act on the occupier of the land though it was positively known and believed that he was the occupier. Having regard to the said ﬁnding of fact, this Court held that failure to serve a notice on such person would amount to willful perversity and the subsequent proceedings cannot be considered bona ﬁde and should be held to be inoperative and accordingly set aside the award on that ground. However, the facts in the case on hand are entirely diﬀerent and therefore the petitioners cannot be granted such relief. On the other hand, as held by the Supreme Court in SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.[3], I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. As noticed above, whereas the draft notiﬁcation was published on 1.6.2007 and the advance possession was taken on 25.8.2007, the present writ petition was ﬁled on 11.7.2008. By that time, even the award was passed on 17.6.2008. It is also relevant to note that in C. PADMA v. DY. SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF T.N. [4] and MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR & ANR. v. SHAH HYDER BEIG & ORS. [5], the Supreme Court held that after the award is passed no writ petition can be ﬁled challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings thereunder. For the aforesaid reasons, this is not a case which warrants interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09.09.2008 gbs Note :- LR copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs [1] 1979 (1) ALT 65 [2] 1980 (1) APLJ 437 (D.B.) [3] 2008 (2) SCALE 271 [4] (1997)2 SCC 627 [5] (2000) 2 SCC 48