THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2021 OF 2004 DATED 23RD DECEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN C.Kuppaiah Naidu … Appellant and The District Collector, Chittoor District, Collectorate, Greemspet, Chittoor. And Another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2021 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per TMK,J) The present writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 08.11.2004 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.127 of 2004 whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The case of the appellant was that a notification dated 08.09.2000 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1894’) whereunder it was proposed to acquire an extent of Acs.0.14 of land in Survey No.269/1B1 and Acs.0.22 of land in Survey No.269/2A in Mogili Village of Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District. Thereupon, a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16.09.2000 and later notice under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act of 1894 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor Division, Chittoor, the second respondent, in Roc.F/283/2000 dated 20.11.2003. The writ petition was filed challenging the notification, declaration and notice as mentioned supra as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is urged before us, as was before the learned single Judge, by the learned counsel for the appellant that even though notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 08.09.2000, followed by declaration dated 16.09.2000 under Section 6, the respondents had failed to pass an Award within two years from the date of declaration made under Section 6 as was required under Section 11-A and therefore, the proceedings initiated to acquire the subject land have lapsed and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 11-A and on that ground alone, the notice issued under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act of 1894 should be quashed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant had instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.392 of 2001 seeking an injunction on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and a status quo order was obtained on 23.04.2001 in I.A.No.349 of 2001 which order was in force till the date of withdrawal of the said suit, i.e., till the first week of December, 2004 and that the pendency of the civil suit and the obtaining of the status quo order therein have no effect on the acquisition proceedings initiated by the District Collector, Chittoor District, the first respondent. He therefore prayed that the writ appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court as the learned Judge considered all aspects and held that the appellant was not entitled to any relief placing reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA v. STATE OF GUJARAT[1]. He therefore prayed that the writ appeal may be dismissed, upholding the well-founded order passed by the learned Judge. A reading of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge, having considered the contentions of the learned counsel on either side and relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA, held that the appellant is not entitled to any relief as sought for. The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, suppressed the factum of approaching the Civil Court by way of a suit and this suppression of fact also disentitles him for any relief, as the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and having regard to the conduct of the appellant, this Court could always deny the relief sought for. In the aforestated decision, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under: “In order to get the benefit of the said provision, what is required, is that the landholder who seeks the benefit must not have obtained any order from a Court restraining any action or proceeding in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act so that the Explanation covers only the cases of those landholders who do not obtain any order from a Court which would delay or prevent the making of the award or taking possession of the land acquired.” In the present case, it is obvious that the appellant herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.392 of 2001 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and a status quo order was obtained on 23.04.2001 in I.A.No.349 of 2001, which order was in force till the date of withdrawal of the said suit, i.e., till the first week of December, 2004. During the period when the status order was in force, i.e., from 23.04.2001 upto the first week of December, 2004, the respondents are statutorily not liable to pass an Award in relation to the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings, having due regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforestated case. However, the Award in this case was passed on 17.01.2004. In the wake of the status quo order, reckoning the period of two years from the date of making declaration under Section-6 of the Act of 1894 for passing the Award does not arise, as is clearly evident from the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ SMT. T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 23rd December, 2009. VGSR/PGS [1] AIR 1991 SC 2153