THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.5993&6016 of 2002 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed by the A.P. Housing Board with a prayer to declare award of 12% additional market value by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur in Award Nos.3 and 4 of 1990, dated 26.02.1990 and 16.05.1990 respectively as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), by setting aside the award to that extent. It also prays for a consequential direction for recovery of that amount from the respondents, who are the erstwhile owners of the land. The petitioner mooted the proposal for acquisition of land in Survey Nos.155 and 156-A of Nallapadu Village, Guntur Mandal and District for the purpose of construction of houses. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 12.06.1980 and this was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The owners of the land filed several writ petitions and obtained interim orders of stay of dispossession. Ultimately, in W.A.No.452 of 1981, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was set aside and the District Collector was directed to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. The two awards referred to above were passed in February and May 1990 in respect of the acquired land. The petitioner states that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the additional market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of notification till the date of award, ignoring the purport of proviso to Sub-section (2) thereof. According to the petitioner, the owners of the land, who figured as the respondents in the writ petitions, remained in possession of the land for a substantial period and awarding additional compensation for that period is not tenable. The contesting respondents, who are owners of the land, filed counter affidavits. They raised an objection as to the very maintainability of the writ petitions. It is also pleaded that Award Nos. 3 and 4 of 1990 were the subject matter of several O.Ps. before a Civil Court and even after becoming party to that original petitions, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner seeks a limited relief of setting aside Award Nos.3 and 4 of 1990 to the extent they have awarded additional market value for the period, during which the contesting respondents are said to have been in possession of the land. The Parliament added Sub-section (A) to Section 23(1) of the Act, providing for grant of additional market value. It reads as under: 23(1-A): In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land, to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. From this, it is clear that basically the additional market value is to be paid for the period between the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the date of award. In case, the possession of the land was taken earlier to the date of draft notification under Section 4(1), additional compensation is to be paid for that period also. Sub-section (1-A) makes it clear that if the proceedings for acquisition of land were held up on account of any stay or injunction granted by the Court, that period should be excluded. The petitioner makes reference to W.P.No.6691 of 1980 etc., filed by the owners of the lands and the interim orders passed therein. Even assuming that the proceedings for acquisition of the land were stalled on account of the interim orders passed by this Court, there are certain hurdles in the way of the petitioner in seeking the relief in the present writ petitions. The first is that the petitioner approached this Court 12 years after the awards were passed. In effect, it is seeking the relief of refund of the additional market value for certain period. Assuming that the petitioner made out a case for refund of the amount, its claim is barred by limitation as well as by the laches. It cannot stand on a better footing, than a person, who lent amount to another on the strength of promissory note. After lapse of three years, the person who lent the amount cannot approach the Court for recovery of the amount. In the instant case, the petitioner woke up 12 years after the award was passed and it parted with the amount. Even where the principle of laches is applied, which is in a way liberal than that of limitation, five years is treated as reasonable period. Viewed in this context, the writ petitions are barred by the principles of limitation and latches. Second is that it is a matter of record that Award Nos.3 and 4 were the subject matter of O.P.Nos.202 of 1990, 50 of 1991 and 147&148 of 1991 and batch on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. The record discloses that the petitioner herein got itself impleaded in those O.Ps. and has canvassed its grievance. Once the awards have become the subject matter of O.Ps., which are the reference under Section 18 of the Act and the decrees passed by Civil Courts have become final, this Court cannot interfere with the awards, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 12.04.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.5993&6016 of 2002 Date: 12.04.2010 JSU