IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10913 of 2009 Between: 1 Mohd Abdul Rub S/o late Shaik Meera APNA Chicken Centre OPP.TVS Show Room High Way Road Asifabad,Adilabad District. 2 Mohd Abdul Qader S/o late Shaik Meera APNA Chicken Centre OPP.TVS Show Room High Way Road Asifabad,Adilabad District 3 Mohd Abdul Waheb S/o late Shaik Meera APNA Chicken Centre OPP.TVS Show Room High Way Road Asifabad,Adilabad District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector Adilabad District 2 The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer Utnoor Adilabad District 3 Abdul Munasf S/oLate Shaik Ahmed H.No.11-7-421-1149/4 Godavarikhani Santhoshnagar Karimnagar,Kamanpur(M) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in proceeding with the enquiry without considering the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal and also violative of procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition 1894 consequently direct the 2nd respondent No.2 to refer the matter for ascertaining the ownership and title of the lands in Sy No.214,216,217,218,219,248 and Sy No.272 to the extent of Ac 27.07 gts situated at Ullipitta (V) Tiryani(M) Adilabad District to Civil Court under Section 30 of Land Acquistion act or to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.B.H.R.CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10913 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking stay of the proceedings issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 29.4.2009, of the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Utnoor, the 2nd respondent herein. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent herein sought to acquire the lands of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons for the purpose of formation of ‘Open Cast Project’ for Singareni Collieries, which is a public purpose. In that regard, a notification was published by the respondents and after invoking the urgency clause, enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was dispensed with. Subsequently, the 1st respondent herein, issued proceedings dated 13.5.2006 under the Act fixing compensation in respect of the lands at Rs. 86,000/- per acre. However, when the respondent-authorities did not pay the compensation amount, it appears, the 3rd respondent herein filed Writ Petition No.28814 of 2008 before this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to pay the compensation amount forthwith. Through order dated 18.3.2009, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the 3rd respondent and to conduct enquiry in accordance with law after issuing notices to all the concerned persons, who are interested in the property and to complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, it appears, the petitioners herein have also filed Writ Petition No. 3611 of 2009 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities not to release the compensation amount, pending completion of the Award enquiry. On 24.2.2009, this Court, while admitting the said writ petition, has granted interim direction to the respondents not to release the compensation amount in respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos. 214,216,217,218, 219, 248 and 272 in an extent of Acs. 27.07 guntas situated in Ullipitt-Dorli Village, Triyani Mandal, Adilabad District, until the completion of the enquiry under Section 11-A of the Act. In pursuance of the above directions, on 29.4.2009, the 2nd respondent herein, issued notices to the petitioners and also the 3rd respondent herein, calling upon them to appear before him on 7.5.2009 and the petitioners also appeared before the 2nd respondent on that day. However, the enquiry was adjourned to 21.5.2009 and on that day, the petitioners submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent along with a copy of the sale deed. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned to 28.5.2009 and then to 29.5.2009 and on 29.5.2009 the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent to adjourn the matter for another fifteen days on the ground that they want to furnish some more material. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent without granting any time to the petitioners is proceeding with the Award enquiry. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. Admittedly, even according to the own admission of the petitioners, the petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No. 3611 of 2009 and obtained interim direction not to release the compensation amount until the completion of the Award enquiry and the petitioners again filed the present writ petition contending that the 2nd respondent without giving any time for production of the necessary documents is proceeding with the Award enquiry. The award enquiry, which respondent No.2 is seeking to conduct, is in pursuance of the interim directions granted by this Court in W.P. No.3611 of 2009, filed by the petitioners. The petitioners having filed the said writ petition and themselves having obtained a direction not to release the compensation until completion of the award enquiry, now cannot seek stay of the said proceedings. The petitioners themselves having obtained an order not to release the compensation until completion of the award enquiry, it is their bounden duty to cooperate with the Enquiry Officer, in completing the enquiry expeditiously, without asking for adjournments or time. If the petitioners intend to produce documents before the Enquiry Officer in support of their case, their remedy is to make an application before the Enquiry Officer, seeking some time, but certainly, they cannot seek stay of the award enquiry, and more so when the petitioners have not placed any material to show that they have made such an application, but it was rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners make any representation seeking time to produce documents in support of their case, the Enquiry Officer shall consider and pass appropriate orders. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA,J DATE: 4th June, 2009 Pnb/ksr