HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3213 of 2000 Dated:30.01.2008 Between: Siddanki Bhimaiah and another. …Petitioners and The Land Acquisition Officer and others. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3213 of 2000 ORDER: The two petitioners are residents of Gangapur Village of Rebbenna Mandal in Adilabad District. They are statedly owners of agricultural lands in survey No.166 admeasuring Acs.8.28 guntas. In 1974, the land was acquired for restoration and formation of Kothacheruvu (Water Tank) in Gangapur Village. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) were initiated in 1974. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published on 29.11.1984. Subsequent thereto, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act No.68 of 1984) came into force prescribing the time limit of two years for passing award from the date of publication of declaration. If the award is not passed, the acquisition proceedings shall lapse. Therefore, the respondents did not pass award and the proceedings were lapsed. Again on 30.05.1987, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were issued. According to the petitioners, these notifications also lapsed, as the award was not passed. However, the first respondent passed award on 10.12.1999. This is assailed in the Writ Petition as illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings for acquiring the subject land. A counter-affidavit is filed. A reading of the same would disclose the following. The land was taken possession in October, 1974 and was put to use for restoration of Kothacheruvu tank. As the award could not be passed, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued on 29.11.1984, was lapsed. But as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P.[1], when possession was taken, Section 11-A of the Act has no application and award can be passed even after lapse of two years. However, being not aware of the legal position, proceedings were initiated in May, 1987, but award was not passed under the impression that they were lapsed. In the meanwhile, the second petitioner along with another filed W.P.No.11160 of 1999 before this Court. The first respondent filed counter seeking time for passing award. Therefore, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Land Acquisition Officer to pass award taking into consideration the claims of the petitioners therein. Accordingly, the award was passed on 10.12.1999. It is the contention of the petitioners that when admittedly the two notifications issued for acquiring the land lapsed, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain (supra), which was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. v. Mohd. Moinuddin Hussan[2], has no application. According to the petitioners, the respondents cannot be said to have taken this legal position into consideration. Therefore, the said principle would not apply. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that when the possession was taken in 1974 itself, and as Section 11-A of the Act was introduced by Act 68 of 1984 and as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain (supra) as not prohibiting passing of an award even after two years when the possession is taken, the award was passed keeping in view the notifications issued on November, 1984. She also submits that this Court also directed the respondents in W.P.No.11160 of 1999 to pass an award and therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the award. The petitioners have not filed any reply-affidavit though the counter was served on them on 13.07.2000. In the counter-affidavit, an averment is made that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was paid to the petitioners, who received the same under protest. In such an event, the remedy is to file an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference. Further, it is averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners filed a petition on 21.01.2000 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act and the matter was considered and referred to the civil Court. This only shows that the dispute raised in this writ petition does not survive. The petitioners have already accepted the compensation and being not satisfied with the same, a reference is made to the civil Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.01.2008 GJ [1] AIR 1993 SC 2517 [2] 1998 (4) ALT 554 (D.B.)