*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +W.P.No.30719 of 2011 % 22-11-2011 # J. Chandra and others .. Petitioners And $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur and others .. Respondents ! Counsel for petitioners: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri ^ Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition ?CASES REFERRED: 1. 2007(5) ALD 191 2. 2002(2) ALT 118 3. 2010(6) SCALE 71 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30719 of 2011 Date : 22-11-2011 Between: J. Chandra and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, Anantapur District, Anantapur and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside award No.57/97-98, dated 28-3-1998 of respondent No.2. The petitioners are the owners of Ac.3-50 cents in Sy.No.318-1 of Moda village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District. The said land was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to homeless poor people of Goravanahalli village. After completing the statutory formalities of acquisition of the land, respondent No.2 has passed the above mentioned award. The petitioners, who are absentee landlords and were living in Coimbatore, did not challenge the acquisition proceedings. More than 13 years after the award was passed, they have filed this Writ Petition by raising the plea that no notices were served on them either prior to publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), or during the award enquiry. It is their further pleaded case that even the award notice has not been served on them so far and that it is only after some persons belonging to the Communist Party sought to forcibly dispossess the petitioners, that they have learnt that the land was acquired and the award was passed in the year 1998. Hence, they have filed the present Writ Petition questioning the entire acquisition proceedings. At the hearing, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of failure of the respondents to serve notices on the petitioners. The learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Dodda Narsimhaiah Vs. District Collector, Anantapur and others[1] wherein a learned single Judge of this Court had set-aside the award on the ground that there was procedural illegality in the service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that as reflected from the award itself, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 21-11-1997, in the locality on 1-12-1997, in the Vaartha newspaper on 28- 11-1997 and Ushodayam newspaper on 29-11-1997. Form-III notice was issued inviting objections for holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that as the land owners have not filed objections and attended the enquiry, declaration under Section 6 of to the Act was issued which was published in the District Gazette on 31-1-1998, in the locality on 4-2-1998 and in the newspapers on 7-2-1998 and 9-2-1998. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act were prepared and sent for publication for service on the land owners directing them to appear for award enquiry on 16-3-1998 and that notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were also published on the land fixing the same to a stick apart from publicizing the same in the village by beat of tom-tom and that none of the pattadars have appeared for the award enquiry. It is further stated that after determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act for adjudication as none of the owners of the lands appeared and made a claim for receiving the compensation. As regards the plea of the petitioners that no notices were issued, it is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for them that service of personal notices is not envisaged upto the stage of proceedings under Section 6 of the Act except in cases where objections were filed in pursuance of general notice issued for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any objections and therefore they cannot be allowed to plead that the acquisition proceedings upto the stage of declaration under Section 6 of the Act are rendered illegal on account of lack of notice to them. The different modes of publication of notices under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act are intended to make the owner of the land or any other person interested therein to be aware of the proposed acquisition. The petitioners have obviously not taken any care to know about the proposed acquisition despite wide publicity given by the respondents before completing the formalities of publication of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. If the petitioners were not in the know of the publication of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act due to their leaving the village and living somewhere else, the respondents cannot be blamed. The learned counsel for the petitioners laid emphasis on the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Dodda Narasimhaiah (1-supra) and submitted that since notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act have not been served at the places of residences of the petitioners at Coimbatore, the award is vitiated. No doubt, in the said Judgment, the learned single Judge, has taken the view that even though the petitioner therein who was the land owner was a resident of Baddi Halli village of Karnataka, the notice was served at a different place called Ratnagiri; that therefore there was procedural illegality in the service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act and that such a course was held to be unsustainable by a Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC Vs. Kamala Kumari[2]. The learned single Judge has taken note of the said Division Bench Judgment wherein it was held that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act vitiates the award. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed before this Court, the Judgment in May George Vs. Special Tahsildar[3], wherein the Supreme Court has taken the view that the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act are only directory; that failure of issuance of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act would not adversely affect the subsequent proceedings including the award and title of the Government in the acquired land; that so far as the person interested is concerned, he is entitled only to receive the compensation and therefore there may be a large number of disputes regarding the apportionment of the compensation and in such an eventuality, he may approach the Collector to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. Having regard to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in May George (3-supra), it needs to be held that the view taken by the Division Bench in APSRTC Vs. Kamala Kumari (2-supra) and the learned single Judge in Dodda Narasimhaiah (1-supra) does not reflect the correct position in law. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in pursuance of the award, possession was taken on 26-6-1998, pattas to 59 persons were issued on 16-10-1998 and to 53 persons were given on 2-3-1999. In my opinion, the petitioners were not diligent in pursuing their cause and have approached this Court with inordinate delay. At any rate, since the petitioners have not questioned the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, they cannot be permitted to seek invalidation of the acquisition proceedings, more so in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court i n May George (3-supra) that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Act would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The next question that remains to be considered is whether the Land Acquisition Officer is justified in referring the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. From the award, it is evident that no one made a claim for compensation. There is no dispute regarding ownership of the lands. The mere absence of claim by the owner of the land during the acquisition proceedings cannot be treated as a dispute arising for adjudication by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Under Section 31(2) of the Act, several contingencies have been envisaged for the Land Acquisition Officer to deposit compensation in the Civil Court until adjudication of the dispute by it. Failure to claim compensation by the land owner is not one such contingency for such deposit. The Land Acquisition Officer ought to have deposited the compensation in the revenue account for being paid to the land owners as and when they make claims for payment. Therefore, in my opinion, the award, to the extent of deposit of compensation before the Civil Court purporting to refer a non-existent dispute to it, cannot be sustained in law. To that extent, the impugned award is set-aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to take steps to see that the compensation amount deposited in the Civil Court is taken back by filing appropriate application and paid to the petitioners on their making their claims before him. The right of the petitioners to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act is also preserved, provided they avail such right within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.38087/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 22-11-2011 L.R. copies AM [1] 2007(5) ALD 191 [2] (2002) 2 ALT 118 [3] 2010(6) SCALE 71