IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELEFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/10/2008 in WP No. 6556 of 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao and another ..... APPELLANTS AND Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District and others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.2008 made in W.P.No.6556 of 2000 by a learned Single Judge allowing and Writ Petition and setting aside the Award dated 30.9.1994 to the extent of Ac.0.24 cents of land belonging to the appellants giving liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh Award after giving notices under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the Act to the appellants and further permitting the appellants to make representation to the respondent No.2 for allotment of one plot each out of 12 vacant plots which were proposed to be auctioned and further directing the respondent No.2 to consider such application on being made, for allotment of one plot each. The respondent herein filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the land acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 in respect of Ac.0.24 cents of land belonging to the petitioners comprised in Sy. Nos. 253/3 and 253/4 of Gunupudi village, Bheemavaram Municipal limits as illegal and arbitrary. It is their case that they purchased the said land for consideration under registered sale deed dated 22.6.1977. While so, in the year 1997, they found that a road was being laid in a part of their land and some stones were planted in the other portion. On local enquiry they came to know that a part of their land was acquired for laying road to the proposed Housing Board Colony in the adjoining land, as such, they wrote a letter dated 11.3.1997 to the first respondent for demarcation of the acquired land and the remaining land and to pay compensation for the acquired land. Though the first respondent replied that he would visit the land on 1.4.1997, he did not visit. Hence, the present writ petition for taking over the land without following due process of law. The case of the respondent No.1 is that though advance possession of the land in the above Sy. Nos. was taken by the 5th respondent on 12.5.1982 and an Award was passed on 30.9.1994, the same was neither questioned by the appellants nor claimed compensation, that an extent of Ac.31.12. cents was handed over to the 5th respondent and inspite of intimation given by the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.3.1997 that inspection would be conducted on 1.4.1997, the petitioner did not turn up. It is further his case that having completed the entire acquisition process, houses are constructed on the acquired land for allotment to the beneficiaries. While narrating the quashing of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued in the year 1979 consequent to the orders of this court in WP No. 3344 of 1984 so also the lapse of fresh proposal consequent upon further directions issued by this court in W.P. No. 11827 of 1999 dated 6.12.1996, it is stated by the respondents 2 and 3, as can be seen from the counter affidavit, that further proceedings were initiated by issuing notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act on 10.11.1993, dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and award was passed on 30.9.1994 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.7,02,000/- in terms of the A.P. Land Acquisition Negotiation Rules, 1992 and the instructions contained in GO Ms. No. 1050 dated 17.10.1991. It is their further case that an extent of Ac.0.40½ cents in Sy. Nos. 252/1, 252/3, 253/3, 4 and 5 and 255/2 and 3, 260/1 and 260/4 was not claimed by anybody and the proceeds thereof were kept in civil deposit. It is further stated that 12 house plots remained vacant and it was decided to dispose of the said plots by public auction proposed to be conducted on 24.4.2000, but since the appellants filed the writ petition, the proposed auction could not be conducted. The learned Single Judge on extensive consideration of the issue, observed that due to the acquisition of the entire extent of Ac.0.24 cents of petitioners land, they are virtually rendered shelterless while their land is acquired to provide shelter to others. Observing so, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in terms of the directions mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioners. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge having held that there were no names of the appellants in the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act or that notices were served on the appellants under Sec. 5, 9 and 10 of the Act, ought not to have directed the appellants to make applications for the allotments of plots. It is further contended that in the factual scenario the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the respondents to pass a fresh award in respect of Ac.0.24 cents of land belonging to the appellants. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Award was passed as long back as on 30.09.1994 dispensing with the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act and advance possession was taken as long back as on 12.05.1982. He further contended that the names of the appellants are not mutated in the revenue records and, as such, the notices could not be served on the appellants, still, the Land Acquisition Officer has made inspection on 01.04.1997, but, it is stated that the appellants have not turned up. Therefore, the action of the appellants in filing the writ petition after a lapse of seven long years from the date of Award, leave alone the date of taking advance possession on 12.05.1982, cannot be appreciated. Admittedly, the advance possession of the petitioners land was taken on 12.05.1982 dispensing with the enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act. The petitioners approached this court filing the above writ petition in the year 2000 i.e. after a long lapse of 18 years. That apart, the silence on the part of the petitioners from 01.04.1997 till the date of filing the present writ petition cannot be comprehended more particularly when it is their case that in the year 1997 itself they came to know that their land was acquired for laying road to the adjacent Housing Board Colony. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in observing that the respondent authorities are duty bound to collect the particulars from the Registration Office about the registered owners of the lands, which they propose to acquire for public purpose. Therefore, we concur with the learned Single Judge in his conclusion that the passing of the consent Award for the petitioners lands also is contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules when there is no such consent given by the petitioners and has, therefore, rightly quashed the award to the extent of Ac.0.24 cents of land belonging to the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader and having gone through the material available on record and the order impugned, we do not find any illegality warranting interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed confirming the order impugned herein. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy October 12, 2009 MAS