THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16538 of 2002 March 04, 2011 Between: Erra Ashaiah And others ... Petitioners And The Sub Collector, Asifabad, Adilabad District And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16538 of 2002 ORDER: The four petitioners are from Nambal village of Rebbana Mandal in Adilabad District. They are allegedly, owners of various extents of land in S.Nos.11, 95, 97, 104 and 106 of the said village (subject land). It is their case that the subject land was forcibly taken by the respondents, namely, the the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad (RDO), the Project Director, ITDA, Utnoor, the District Collector, Adilabad, and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. According to the petitioners, this happened in 1990. Eleven years thereafter they got issued a legal notice dated 08.1.2001 to the first respondent. In response thereto, the RDO addressed a letter dated 12.12.2001 to the second respondent to take further course of action in the matter. Even thereafter, the respondents – it is alleged – did not pay compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). Therefore, they filed the instant writ petition on 29.8.2002. The RDO filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the fourth petitioner is pattadar of land admeasuring Acs.1.05 guntas in S.No.106. The allegation that petitioners 1 to 3 also have lands is denied. It is further denied that the subject land is situated in Nambal village. The further case of the respondents is as follows. In 1990, a road was formed from Nambal to Dharmaram by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor (ITDA) for the benefit of local tribals. The land admeasuring Acs.1.05 in S.No.106 belonging to the fourth respondent alone was affected and the lands of petitioners 1 to 3 are not affected, in the formation of the road. Before forming the road, all the pattadars/cultivators whose lands were affected gave consent for formation of the road and also agreed not to seek any compensation. After receiving the legal notice from the petitioners, the matter was referred to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Utnoor (MRO) for getting details of lands and the names of the pattadars whose lands are affected. The third respondent was also directed to look into the matter. Thereafter the officials of ITDA approached the villagers. In the Grama sabha held on 23.1.2002 affected pattadars participated and resolved that all of them should withdraw their petitions claiming compensation. The resolution was also recorded on a stamp paper worth Rs.10/-. Therefore having waived the right, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit nor seriously disputed the documents including copy of the resolution annexed to the counter affidavit. This only shows that it is only the land of the fourth petitioner which was affected by road formation and the lands of petitioners 1 to 3 were not at all affected. The question for consideration is whether utilization of land of the fourth petitioner without paying compensation under the provisions of the Act is permissible under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Act provides for detailed procedure for acquiring private property for public purpose. Admittedly the respondents have not followed any such procedure like issuing draft notification, draft declaration, notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) or 10(1) of the Act. No award proceedings were conducted. Ordinarily such procedure cannot be justified having regard to the clear language of Article 300A of the Constitution to the effect that, “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”. But Section 11(2) of the Act enables the passing of an award with the consent of the parties. Such consent has to be given by the owners of the property in writing. When a consent award is passed, the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1922 (the Rules) is to be followed, which require the negotiations by the Committee constituted as per Rule 4 of the Rules and execution of an agreement in Form III and affidavit in Form IV. Indisputably all these are absent. Even then the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief. No land of the petitioners 1 to 3 was affected. In the Gram Sabha conducted on 23.1.2002 as many as 20 pattadars including the Sarpanch were present. The petitioners 1 to 3 were also present. If the land of the petitioners 1 to 3 was also affected in the formation of the road, they could have certainly raised objection. They did not do so. Apart from that, they also agreed for the resolution passed on that day. Secondly, so far as the fourth petitioner is concerned, he also participated in the Grama Sabha and agreed to withdraw the complaint and, therefore, he is deemed to have waived his right. The right recognized under Article 300A of the Constitution is also one of those rights, which can be waived by the petitioner. Lastly, admittedly Nambal to Dharmaram road was formed in 1990. The petitioners did not raise any objection till 08.1.2001 when they got issued the legal notice. The delay and laches defeat their cause. When the fourth petitioner himself is at fault, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March , 2011 YS