THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 19269 of 2007 & 13689 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The District Collector, Hyderabad issued a notiﬁcation, dated 15.01.2007, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire various extents of land along the road from Gulzar Houz to Royal Function Hall, Hyderabad City for the purpose of widening of the said road. A small extent of the land of the petitioner, admeasuring18.3 square yards, was also notiﬁed. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and declaration under Section 6 was published on the same date. As required under the Act, the publications were made in the News Papers as well as the Gazette. Thereafter, award enquiry was held and an award was passed on 25.04.2007. W.P.No.19269 of 2007 is ﬁled by the petitioner assailing the award, on the ground that though there was no dispute as to the entitlement or apportionment, the matter was referred to a Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. The same petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.13689 of 2008 challenging the entire proceedings, on the ground that though enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, possession was not taken within three months from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 and thereby, the proceedings became vitiated, in view of sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act introduced by the A.P. State Amendment. The second respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating the facts that led to the reference of the matter to a Civil Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The State Government and the District Collector are conferred with power under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A, in case there is urgency in acquisition. Through the A.P. State Amendment, sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act was introduced to check the indiscriminate invocation of urgency clause. The said provision directs that in case the possession of the property is not taken within three months, after the notiﬁcation published, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A, it shall be deemed that Section 5-A shall apply and the consequential enquiry shall be conducted. There was some uncertainty as to the applicability of the said provision. While in some judgments, it was opined that sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act is contrary to the very scheme under the Act, in other cases, it was held that there is no repugnancy. The initial challenge of the petitioner is to the award itself. The only ground urged in challenge to the award is that a reference was made to a Civil Court, though, no dispute as to the entitlement, exists. From a perusal of the counter-aﬃdavit, it is evident that the petitioner did not participate in the award enquiry personally and on her behalf, a representative came. It was also mentioned that certain other persons have also submitted claims. It was in this context that the reference was made to a Civil Court. The Land Acquisition Officer is not conferred with the power to adjudicate the rival claims. He has adopted the correct and proper course in referring the matter to a civil Court. The petitioner cannot be said to have suﬀered any detriment. In case there is no rival to the petitioner to claim compensation, within no time, she can get a decree in her favour. On the other hand, if there are any claims, the Civil Court would adjudicate the same. Either way, it cannot be said that the action of the respondents in referring the matter to a civil Court is wrong. The second writ petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the respondents in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. This plea is based on sub-section (5) of Section 17, introduced by the A.P. State Amendment. Even assuming that there was any lapse on the part of the respondents, it becomes incompatible for this Court to interfere, particularly, in view of the fact that an award had already been passed. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once an award is passed, the validity of the notiﬁcations under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act cannot be dealt with. At any rate, the delay on the part of the respondents in taking possession of the land after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is said to be on account of resistance oﬀered by the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents had to take recourse to the procedure under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any illegality on the part of the respondents in regard to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. Further, it is one of the large number of small bits, which were acquired for widening of the road. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. The Civil Court, to which the reference was made, shall endeavour to dispose of the same, within six (6) months from the date on which the reference is received. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.10.2008. kdl