THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16694 OF 2011 DATED: 21.09.2011 Between : Gulam Dastagiri … Petitioner And 1. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary To Government, Revenue and Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and two others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16694 OF 2011 ORDER : The petitioner claims title and possession in respect of Ac.0-24 cents of land situated in Sy.No.556/3B of Proddatur Town, Kadapa District. The said land was acquired invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of construction of residential quarters to the members of Proddatur Co-operative House Building Society Limited (for short, ‘the Society’). Pursuant thereto, Award dated 5.11.1982 was passed fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.37,500/- per acre. It is pleaded in the writ petition that despite the said award dated 5.11.1982, the compensation awarded has not been paid to the petitioner nor the possession of the land is taken. Claiming that he has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the acquired land even after 28 years from the date of award, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.5.2011 requesting the respondent No.2 to release his land from acquisition proceedings. Alleging that the respondents failed to consider his request, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the Award dated 5.11.1982, Draft Notification dated 22.08.1978 and Draft Declaration dated 22.8.1978 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0-24 cents in Sy.No.556/3B of Proddatur Town, Kadapa District as arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded in the writ petition that after passing the award dated 5.11.1982 several other lands were also acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the members of Proddatur Co-operative House Building Society and as such the purpose for which the lands were acquired did not survive. It is also pleaded that in spite of the acquisition since the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question for the past 30 years, it is in the interest of justice to re-convey the acquired land to the respective owners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.783, dated 9.10.1998. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, it is stated that after passing the award dated 5.11.1982 notices under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act were served on the land owners and the possession of the total extent of Ac.35-97 cents of land, including the land of the petitioners was taken and the same was handed over to the Proddatur Co-operative House Building Society. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.10,350/- was awarded towards compensation of the land owned by the petitioner, however as the compensation amount was not claimed by the petitioner’s father the said amount was kept in revenue deposit vide Challan No.344, dated 19.5.1989 and the said fact was intimated to the petitioner. Long thereafter the petitioner sought the details of the compensation in respect of his land under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the said information was furnished to him by letter dated 24.02.2011 by registered post. However the said letter was returned with postal endorsement that the addressee’s whereabouts were not known. While reiterating that the possession of the land in question was taken following due process of law immediately after passing the award dated 5.11.1982, it is contended that the writ petition which was filed after 28 years of passing the award was liable to be rejected on the ground of laches alone. It is also pleaded that the land is under possession of Proddatur Co-operative House Building Society Limited as of today and the Tahsildar, Proddatur having inspected the land submitted his report stating that the said society, after taking possession had prepared layout allotted sites to its members and thereafter the land was handed over to the Municipality, Proddatur for developmental activities. It was also found that the society had constructed boundary wall around the acquired land. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating that the petitioner has been continuing in possession of the land in question as on today and that even panchanama was not recorded to show the delivery of possession to the society, vehemently contended that the stand taken by the respondent that the possession was taken long back is absolutely false and incorrect. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in SRINIVASA COOP. HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED v. MADAM G. SASTRY[1], wherein it was held that taking symbolic or notional possession was not envisaged under the Act. While relying upon SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY v. GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI[2] the learned Counsel further contended that the beneficiary of the impugned acquisition being a private society, it was mandatory to follow the procedure contemplated under the Chapter-VII of the Act and since no such procedure was followed, the entire proceedings are liable to be declared as illegal. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. It is to be noticed that by notification dated 15.6.1978 published under Section 4(1) of the Act, an extent of Ac.39-26 cents was acquired for the purpose of construction of houses to the members of the society. Out of the said land, the petitioner is concerned with Ac.0- 24 cents. Admittedly the petitioner had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and he was also aware of the Award dated 5.11.1982. The fact that the petitioner’s father had participated in the Award enquiry and that the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on him is not disputed before this Court. The learned Government Pleader has produced the original record and it shows that some of the land owners had earlier filed W.P.No.50 of 1997 challenging the Award dated 5.11.1982 and seeking a further declaration that the public purpose for which their lands were acquired failed and therefore the acquired lands shall be re-conveyed. Proddatur Co-operative House Building Society Limited for whose benefit the land was acquired was also a party to the said writ petition. After hearing the said society as well as the Land Acquisition Officer, this Court dismissed W.P.No.50 of 1997 by order dated 27.12.2000 holding that the society continued to be in uninterrupted possession ever since 1983 and that the writ petition which was filed after 14 years of delivery of possession to the society was not maintainable. This Court also held that even if the land was not used for public purpose for which it was acquired, the owners after receiving compensation had no right in law to insist for re-delivery of the same merely on the plea that the acquired land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. Admittedly the said order dated 27.12.2000 in W.P.No.50 of 1997 attained finality and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to re- agitate the issue after a long lapse of 30 years. As a matter of fact, the society is not made a party to this writ petition. In the absence of the society, the dispute raised by the petitioner about the non-utilization of the land in question cannot be taken into consideration. At any rate, even assuming that the land has not been put to use by the society, the same cannot be a valid ground to set at naught the acquisition proceedings after a long lapse of 30 years and to direct re- conveyance as sought by the petitioner. For the very same reason, the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of panchanama recording the delivery of possession to the society, the stand taken by the respondents that the society was put in possession long back cannot be accepted is untenable. Similarly it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the acquisition at this stage on the ground that the respondents had failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Chapter-VII of the Act. As held in SWIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[3], it is not open to the petitioner to raise such a contention after the award is passed, particularly when he is well aware of the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.09.2011 gbs [1] (1994) 4 SCC 675 [2] (2009) 10 SCC 501 [3] 2008 (2) SCALE 271