IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 893 of 2002 Between: 1 Settipally Mahaboob Sharief, S/o.Hussain Peera, R/o.D.No.9/589, Sunnapubatti Street, Proddatur Town, Cuddapah District. 2 Settipally Mahaboob Basha, S/o.Hussain Peera, R/o.H.No.9/589, Sunnapubatti Street, Proddatur Town, Cuddapah District. 3 Chintakunta Chand Basha, S/o.Ramthu Saheb, R/o.D.No.9/577, Sunnapubatti Street, Proddatur Town, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. V.HIMABINDU FOR MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside notiﬁcation, dated 24.06.1999 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of lands in Survey No.544 of Kothapalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners stated that the land admeasuring Ac.1.51 cents in Survey No.544 of Kothapalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District, originally belonged to one Malapati China Venkata Subbaiah; that later, he sold the land to diﬀerent parties; that some of the parties have resold the land to third parties and that one such transaction is covered by registered sale deed, dated 17.05.1982, under which, Jonna Pedda Bala Papanna purchased the land admeasuring 73.5 cents. They further stated that after the lifetime of the said Pedda Bala Papanna, the property devolved on his legal heirs from whom the petitioners jointly purchased the same through registered sale deed, dated 15.06.1996. In addition to the said land, petitioner No.1 purchased the land admeasuring 42.5 cents under registered sale deed, dated 03.10.1996 from one Fakruddin, Son of Sanjamulla Hussain and two others. They also stated that they made applications to the Gram Panchayat to approve the layout and the same are pending. They further stated that very recently, they came to know from one Sivarami Reddy, owner of land in Survey Nos.560/3 and 561/2, that the above mentioned lands along with other lands were proposed for acquisition under notiﬁcation, dated 09.08.2000 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act; that their enquiries revealed that the said notiﬁcation was published in Andhra Bhoomi newspaper on 09.08.2000 and they have not seen the said notiﬁcation; that they were informed that the said notiﬁcation was published in the District Gazette on 16.07.1999 issued in the name of Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh though the notiﬁcation purported to have been issued by the Oﬃce of the District Collector and that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the District Gazette on 17.07.1999. In this writ petition, they questioned the validity of the notiﬁcation and the declaration on the grounds that (a) there was a time gap of more than one year between the Gazette notiﬁcation and the publication in the local newspapers, which shows that there is no urgency for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act (b) the very purpose, for which the acquisition was proposed, namely, extension of industrial estate, cannot be said to be so urgent as to invoke the urgency clause and dispense with the enquiry and (c) after issuance of notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, no steps were taken to take possession of the land. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District, it is stated that on the requisition sent by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short ‘APIIC’), draft notiﬁcation and declaration proposals were approved by the Collector, Kadapa on 24.06.1999, notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 16.07.1999, the substance of the notiﬁcation was published in the locality on 28.07.1999 and paper publications were made in Andhra Prabha and Andhra Bhoomi newspapers on 05.08.2000 and 09.08.2000 respectively. It is further stated that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 17.07.1999 in the locality on 28.07.1999 and in Andhra Prabha and Andhra Bhoomi newspapers on 06.08.2000 and 10.08.2000 respectively. Notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act were published on 06.12.2001 and since none of the persons notiﬁed in the Gazette were available, personal notices could not be served and notice of enquiry scheduled for 24.12.2001 was published in the locality by erecting a pole in the lands and the said notices were aﬃxed to the pole apart from publishing the award enquiry by beating tom-tom on 06.12.2001. It is further stated that in spite of the said publication and tom-tom in the locality, none of the landowners attended the enquiry and accordingly, the same was adjourned to 17.01.2002. After giving fresh notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, on 17.01.2002, the award enquiry was held; that on 04.02.2002 also, none of the landowners appeared before the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and hence, award was passed on 14.02.2002 and possession of the lands except the lands in respect of Survey No.544 was taken on 27.02.2002. It is also stated that in respect of the lands covered by Survey No.544, possession was taken on 14.03.2002. The answering respondent justiﬁed dispensing with the enquiry on the ground that the purpose of establishment of an industrial estate warranted invocation of the urgency clause. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to the above-mentioned counter-affidavit. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the petitioners, who claimed to have purchased the properties, approached this Court almost 2½ years after the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette and in the locality, and almost 1½ years after the same was published in the newspapers. The only explanation offered by the petitioners for the delayed ﬁling of the writ petition is that they have not seen the notiﬁcation. Such an explanation, I am afraid, cannot be accepted. The petitioners should have been diligent in approaching this Court at the right earnest. The fact remains that few days after ﬁling of the present writ petition, the award was passed. In my considered opinion, the petitioners, who failed to show due diligence in approaching this Court, are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though respondent No.2 ﬁled his counter-aﬃdavit in the year 2003, wherein he categorically mentioned that award was passed on 14.02.2002, the petitioners have not taken any steps to amend the writ petition to question the validity of the award. Thus, they have allowed the award to become ﬁnal. Therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings, which already culminated in passing of the award. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 08.04.2002 is vacated and WPMP.No.987 of 2002 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th AUGUST, 2008. kvni