THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.23779 of 2006 DATED : 31.01.2008 Between: G.Vishnuvardhan Rao S/o Seetaramaiah R/o C-15, I Floor, Divya Apartments, Mancherial, Adilabad District. … PETITIONER And: The District Collector, Adilabad District and others. … RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.23779 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the respondents acted arbitrarily and failing to pass an award despite the directions in W.P.No.2160 of 2004 by the judgment dated 19.02.2004. Even without reference to the pleadings in the writ petition as per the facts admitted in the counter-affidavit and chronology of events submitted on behalf of the respondents, the facts are these. On 04.04.2001, the Public Health Department, Karimnagar, requisitioned the revenue department for acquisition of land in Sy.No.77 to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in Garmilla village H/o Mancherial Village and Mandal for the purpose of executing a water supply scheme under the National River Conservation plan. On 16.12.2002, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was published in the District Gazette for this purpose. The paper publication was on 24.12.2002 and 27.12.2002. Urgency was invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the Gazette on 17.12.2002 and in the English and Telugu newspapers on 25.12.2002 and 28.12.2002, respectively. Without knowledge of the initiation of acquisition proceedings and apprehending dispossession unlawfully, petitioner filed W.P.No.2160 of 2004 complaining illegal dispossession and seeking redelivery of possession to him. At the hearing of the writ petition on 19.02.2004, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that acquisition proceedings were initiated and notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued and also published in the newspapers. Recording these facts, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to pass an award, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Though urgency was invoked in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, gazetted on 16.12.2002, possession of the land was taken only on 08.04.2003 nearly five months later. This conduct of the respondent-State belies the existence of any urgency in taking possession of the property and constitutes evidence of the arbitrary and careless exercise of power. Be that as it may. The respondent did not comply with the directions in W.P.No.2160 of 2004 with regard to the time schedule for passing the award. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed. It was brought to the notice of this Court that despite invocation of urgency, the State failed to tender or deposit 80% of the compensation amount, as mandated by the provisions of Section 17(3) (a) of the Act. Thereupon, by order dated 22.01.2007, this Court directed the respondents to tender or deposit 80% of the estimated compensation for the acquired land of the petitioner within 48 hours. The order of this Court was received by the respondents on 23.01.2007 and on the same day, an amount of Rs.88,000/- was deposited in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, through a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, as there was a dispute as to the person entitled to the compensation for the land. The award was passed on 23.02.2007 and in view of the evidence of a dispute as to entitlement to the compensation, the balance of Rs.68,547/-, as per the assessment of the Land Acquisition Officer in the award was deposited in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, as an accretion to the amount already deposited towards 80% of the compensation. Pursuant to a query from this Court as to whether any action was initiated against the officers responsible for violation of the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act in the matter of depositing 80% of the compensation, the first respondent-Collector, has pleaded that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against two officers, a Revenue Divisional Officer and a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial and that charges were also framed against them. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has placed before this Court the proceedings of the District Collector dated 18.01.2008, whereby the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect is imposed on the former senior assistant of the office of the Revenue Divisional officer, Mancherial, who is currently working as a Deputy Tahsildar. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.2131, Revenue Department dated 03.10.2007 has framed charges against Sri B.S.V.V.S.Murthy, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial. As the State has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the officers found responsible for violation of the petitioner’s rights as ensured under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, and as 80% of the compensation has also been deposited as well as an award passed, though belated, the relief in specie as claimed in this writ petition need not be granted. However, since the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court earlier by way of W.P.No.2160 of 2004 and again through this writ petition on account of the failure of the respondents, in particular, in implementing the directions in W.P.No.2160 of 2004 and since the petitioner or the appropriate beneficiaries been deprived of the enjoyment of the 80% compensation in time on account of the unexplained failure of the respondents in tendering or depositing 80% estimated compensation along with the dispossession in April 2003, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If there be a dispute as to the petitioner’s entitlement to the compensation, the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited into the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, where the amount of the award has been deposited, for the benefit of the persons entitled to the compensation amount. This amount is towards compensation for the negligent conduct of the State and its officers in failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act and shall not be computed towards any amounts due to the landowners under the provisions of the Act, but shall be in addition thereto. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with costs. _________ 31.01.2008 sh