THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6570 of 2005 March 04, 2011 Between: A.P. Housing Board, rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Housing Commissioner, Hyderabad ... Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad And another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6570 of 2005 ORDER: A.P. Housing Board, a statutory body, situated under the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956, filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) being award No.11/1988 dated 21.7.1988 passed by the third respondent and for a further direction to the respondents to refund an amount of rs.1,98,560/- with interest to the Board. The petitioner sent a requisition for acquiring Acs.25.45 in Kalluru village. The first respondent issued notification dated 11.7.1984 under Section 4(1) of the Act. The same was withdrawn and a fresh notification was issued on 03.2.1986 followed by declaration under section 6 of the Act dated 08.2.1986. After conducting enquiry, award was passed on 20.7.1988. The land acquisition was assailed by one K.Ramaiah and others inter alia on the ground that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is illegal. The writ petition being W.P. No.1514 of 1988 was allowed on 04.7.1996. This Court directed the respondents to conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Act duly quashing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted and an award was passed. It is the grievance of the Board that the order of this Court in W.P. No.12514 of 1988 and the award passed by the third respondent are void ab initio in the eye of law, as the requisition of the department was never put on notice in spite of regular correspondence between the Board and the Government officials. The third respondent filed counter affidavit. Paragraph 5 thereof reads as under. It is submitted that it is a fact that one Sri K.Ramaiah and 5 others filed a Writ Petition No.12514 of 1988 on the file of this Hon’ble Court questioning the Draft Notification and Draft Declaration as published in the A.P. Gazette dated 03.2.1986 and 18.2.1986. This Hon’ble Court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 04.7.1996 directing the respondents to conduct the enquiry under Section 5 of the L.A. Act by quashing the Draft Declaration issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. As already submitted an award was passed on 20.7.1988. The possession of the land was taken on 21.7.1988 and was handed over to the petitioner Housing Board. Since there was a dispute with regard to title the compensation amount was deposited in Civil Court by referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 31(2) of the L.A. Act. The above facts could not be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court at the time of disposal of the Writ petition No.12514 of 1988 on 04.7.1996. The land Acs.2.72 cents in Sy.No.611/2A of Kurnool Village stood vested in the Government before 04.7.1996. Therefore the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.12514 of 1988 dated 04.7.1996 is of no consequence. The counter averments that after disposal of the writ petition filed by the land owners, award was passed; the land was taken possession on 21.7.1988; and the same was handed over to the Board remain unrebutted. This makes it very clear that the petitioner who accepted the amount without any demur is now turning around and taking a different stand. Indeed as rightly pointed out by the Government Pleader for Revenue (L.A), the enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A or the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act before passing the award do not require a notice to be given to the requisitioning department although on their own volition they may come before the Land Acquisition Officer and put up their case. In this case, admittedly there were number of occasions where the Board could have appeared and objected to the enquiry under Section 5A or the compensation claimed by the land owners. Having not done so, the A.P. Housing Board cannot be allowed to challenge the award passed in 1988, after lapse of 17 years. The writ petition is also hit by delay and laches. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 04, 2011 YS