IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7172 of 2001 Between: 1 Sukhavasi Narayana Rao ( Died per L.R.'s ) S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Gurrampalem, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 2 Sukhavasi Vasu S/o. S.Narayana Rao R/o.2-54, Gurrampalem, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 3 S.S.R.K.S.Prasad S/o. S.Narayana Rao R/o.2-54, Gurrampalem, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 4 S.V.N.Amarnath S/o. S.Narayana Rao R/o.2-54, Gurrampalem, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 5 S.A.N.Ajay S/o. S.Narayana Rao R/o.2-54, Gurrampalem, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 6 S.Ammaji W/o.Late Narayana Rao R/o. Gurrampalem, Pendurthi Mandal Visakhapatnam District. 7 M.Jyothi W/o.Late M.Jayapal R/o.LIG-25, Sector-1, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam. 8 B.Ramani W/o.Uma Maheshwara Rao, R/o.200 Demellous Road, Opp: Natraj Theater, Choolai, Chennai. 9 S.Lasmi Kantham W/o.Satyanarayana C/o. M.Jyothi, LIG-25, Sector-1, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam. 10 M.Chitti W/o.Prasad R/o.65-1-104/A, Srinivasanagar, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam District. 11 M.Gowri W/o,M.V.M.Pathrudu, R/o.HIG 116/8, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam . 2 The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition , APIIC Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR DEEPAK MISHRA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under notification dated 30-04-1998 and declaration dated 23- 07-1998 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) respectively have lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and petitioners 2 to 11 were brought on record as his legal representatives by order dated 11-03-2004 passed by this Court. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners specifically averred that certain lands belonging to them were notified for acquisition under notification dated 30-04-1998 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Though, in their affidavit, the petitioners stated that the details of the lands belonging to them and notified are fully described in the schedule, no such schedule is appended to the affidavit. Ordinarily a writ petition not supported by material particulars ought not to have been entertained. Since the writ petition is already admitted in the year 2001, I am not inclined to throw it away on the ground of lack of details. At the hearing, Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out from the schedule of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act that the lands in Survey Nos.172/6, 172/7, 172/8, 172/10 and 172/11 belong to the petitioners. A verification of the said schedule shows that the name of deceased petitioner No.1 is mentioned against the said survey numbers. The petitioners averred that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 30-04-1998, wherein the petitioners’ lands along with other lands were proposed to be acquired for industrial development, and that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 23-07-1998. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though more than 2½ years elapsed by the time of filing of the writ petition, the respondents have not passed the award and hence, in view of Section 11-A of the Act, the whole land acquisition proceedings have lapsed with the expiry of two years from publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Under Section 11-A of the Act, the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 of the Act within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Since the averment made by the petitioners that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed, as award has not been passed in terms of Section 11-A of the Act, is not denied by the respondents, the said plea of the petitioners deserves to be accepted. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. It is declared that the land acquisition proceedings to the extent of the lands of the petitioners have got lapsed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th August, 2008 vrn