IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD , THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1369 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07-08-2008 in W.P.No.22046 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court) Between: 1 P.S.K. Chaitanya, s/o. Ramesh Babu R/o. Ponnikallu Village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District. 2 Smt. Yelamanchili Sudha Vani, w/o.Krishna Mohan R/o. Ashok Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Smt. Nimagadda Radhika , w/o.N.Banu Prasad, R/o.H.No.40-4- 10, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 Smt. Yelamanchili Geeta Sudha, W/o.Y.V.S.Chalapathi Rao R/o.H.No.4-25,Enikapadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 Smt. Yelamanchili Venkata Jaya Ratna, W/o.Srinivasa Rao R/o.H.No.4-25,Enikapadu,Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1 The State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P. rep. by its principal Secretary to Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 4 The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (Industries), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 5 The Vice Cahirman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. 6 The Managing Director, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, IV Floor, Parishram Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad. 7 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division having its office at Domalguda, Hyderabad. 8 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 The Station House Officer, Raidurg Police Station, Raigurg, Ranga Reddy District. 10 The Commissioner, Sherilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 11 Sri.Laxminarayana Pratap Singh s/o. Late Kalyan Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 12 Smt.Laxmi Narayana Indrani Bai W/o.Late Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 13 Sri laxmi Narayana Shanker Singh, s/o. Late Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 14 Sri.laxmi Narayana Samrat Singh, S/o. Latge Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 15 Sri.Laxmi Narayana Sunil Singh s/o. Late Bharath Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 16 Smt. Laxmi Narayana Chandar Bai W/o. Late Balaji Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 17 Kumari.Laxmi Narayana Renuka Bai D/o. Late Balaji Singh represented by their natural mother and guardian Smt.L.Chandar Bai i.e, Respondent No. 16 18 Kumari.Laxmi Narayana Durga Bai D/o. Late Balaji Singh represented by their natural mother and guardian Smt.L.Chandar Bai i.e, Respondent No. 16 19 Sri.Laxmi Narayana Dhanraj Singh s/o. Late Kalyan Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondents 11 to 19 are rep. by their G.P.A. Holder Sri Laxminarayana Rajan, S/o. Sri Late kalyan Singh, Age40 20 Sri. Amar Singh s/o. Prakash Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 21 Sri. Sailender Singh s/o. Prakash singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 22 Sri. Ravinder Singh S/o. Prakash Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 23 Sri. Devender Singh s/o. Prakash singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 24 Sri.L.Ramesh Singh S/o. Late Fathe Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 25 Smt. L.Kamala Bai W/o. Ramesh Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 26 Sri.L.Ranjith Singh s/o. L.Ramesh Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 27 Sri. L.Ganesh Singh S/o. Late Fathe Singh, R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 28 Sri.L.Deepak Singh s/o. Late Fathe Singh R/o.Nanakramguda Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (RR 20 to 28 are Rep. by their General Power Attorney Holder Sri Lakshminarayana Prakash Singh, S/o. Sri Late Fathe Singh ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for Appellants: Mr.V. Hariharan Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J) This writ appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.22046 of 2002, aggrieved by the order dated 17-08-2008 passed by the learned single Judge. 2. The appellants herein had filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 10 in acquiring their plots in Sy.Nos.203/2, 204, 205 and 206/A of Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide notification No.G/2349/2001 and also the declaration issued vide proceedings No.G1/2349/2001. 3. As pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was the case of the appellants, before the learned single Judge that they have acquired residential sites admeasuring 200 Sq. yards each in the developed layout, in Silicon Heights, for the purpose of constructing residential houses therein. It was their grievance that though they have purchased the said pieces of land for the purpose of constructing residential houses, the same were notified for acquisition by notification dated 08-06-2001, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published on 13-06-2001, for the purpose of establishing Cyber Park, without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under law. It was their grievance that though they have purchased the said sites from the original owners, i.e., respondents 11 to 28, in spite of the same, without due notice to them, acquisition proceedings were taken up and they are sought to be dispossessed. It is also alleged in the affidavit that acquisition proceedings are bad for the reason that the notification and declaration are published on the same day, and further, having regard to the purpose of acquisition, there was no such urgency so as to dispense with the enquiry, as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act. 4. The learned single Judge, by the order impugned, recorded a finding that the writ petition is of the year 2002 and this court passed interim orders of status quo on 07-11-2002 for a period of only two weeks and subsequently the said orders were not extended. Taking note of the averment in the counter affidavit, that award was passed with regard to the acquired land and possession was also handed over to the beneficiary, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. 5. In this appeal, it is contended by Mr. V. Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellants, that the very acquisition proceedings are per se illegal as much as the notification under 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published on the same day. It is further submitted that the appellants themselves purchased the aforesaid residential house-sites and as their purchase was prior to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, they were to be given opportunity by the respondents before finalizing such proceedings. It is submitted that, in any event, there was no need for invoking urgency clause by dispensing with the enquiry, which is a valuable right conferred in the statute itself. 6. With reference to the afore-stated submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents has pointed out that, in the counter affidavit it is stated that the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, were published on 13-06- 2001 and 14-06-2001 respectively. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that possession of the land was taken and handed over to A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation on 02-07-2002 after passing of award by the Land Acquisition Officer, vide proceedings dated 31-1- 2001. It is further stated that though the appellants claim to have purchased lands in the aforesaid survey numbers, but, however, as per the revenue records, the land covered by Sy.No.203 is a Government land and the appellants cannot claim any right and title over the said land. It is stated that the land in Sy.No.203 was assigned in favour of third parties and there was no right for the assignees to alienate the land. With regard to the land covered by Sy.Nos. 204, 205 and 206/A, it is stated that the names of the appellants do not figure in the revenue records and as per the entries made in the revenue records, for the total extent of Ac.6.23 guntas, patta stood in the name of the un-official respondents, and, as such, notification was issued based on the entries in the revenue records. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that possession of the land in question was taken, even prior to grant of interim orders by this court and now in view of the fact that possession is already handed over to third parties several years back, without questioning the award proceedings, the appellants cannot claim any relief, at this point of time. 7. A separate counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.5 stating that the land in question falls in the recreational use zone and though objections and suggestions were invited with regard to the proposal for change of land use from recreation use to residential use, however, as there was no Government Order effecting the change of land usage, no modification was done to Zonal Development Plan. It is further stated that no application for sanction of layout was made for division of the land into plots and if any activity for construction is taken by the petitioners, the same was illegal. 8. Although the appellants claim title over small pieces of land admeasuring 200 Sq. yards each, however, they have not furnished any particulars with regard to grant of layout by the competent authority in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.5, it is categorically pleaded that the land which the subject matter of acquisition is not covered by any sanctioned layout by the competent authority. In absence of such sanctioned layout by the competent authority, division of land into plots is per se illegal and no sales could have taken place in absence of any sanctioned layout for small plots as claimed by the appellants. Though it is the case of the appellants that notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published on the same day, but, however, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 13-06-2001, whereas declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14-06-2001. It is evident from the counter affidavit that even before filing of the writ petition in the month of October, 2002, possession of the lands in question was taken on 02-07-2002 and was handed over to the requisition department. Even after filing of the writ petition, though the appellants-petitioners have obtained interim orders of status quo for a period of two weeks, thereafter, they could not seek any extension orders and award was also passed pursuant to notification and declaration by conducting necessary enquiry. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no reason to dispense with the enquiry having regard to the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired, but, however, such questions cannot be examined at this belated stage, nearly after 7 years of passing of the award pursuant to initiation of land acquisition proceedings. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. The Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., and others.,[1] held that, normally Court should be loath to quash the proceedings at a belated stage after passing of the award. Further, in the case of Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another Vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, once award is passed, notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be quashed. In the case on hand, it appears that the appellants have purchased plots in absence of a valid sanctioned layout by the competent authority and the same is evident from the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.5. In view of the fact that the land in question was taken possession in the year 2001, i.e. nearly 7 years back and as the award has become final, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge in rejecting to quash the notification at this belated stage. We too share the same view and reject this appeal. 10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. December , 2008 MRR [1] AIR 1997 SC 482 [2] AIR 2000 SC 671