IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 17542 of 2001 BETWEEN: Smt P. Vimala Devi W/o. Sri P. Rajaiah, R/o. 1-1-101/A/10,11,12, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, M.C.H., Hyderabad. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Rep by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad. ...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 order or direction particularly one in the of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondent No.1 issued in form 10 requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises bearing No.1-1-101/A/10, R.T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad within one day as illegal, and arbitrary and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. R. RAMACHANDRA REDDY SC FOR MUN. CORPORATION GP FOR MUN. CORP. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner submits that she is the owner of the premises bearing No.1- 1-101/A/10 situated over an extent of 270 sq. yards in T.S.No.15/2, Block I, Ward-66, Bakaram, Hyderabad and the said building consists of ground + two floors. While so, in 1998 the second respondent – Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad proposed to demolish the structure for the purpose of road widening. Aggrieved by the said action the petitioner filed WP.No.16700 of 1998 and obtained interim order in WPMP.No.19884 of 1998 dated 17.06.1998 directing the second respondent not to demolish the building without issuing notice or initiating acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the first respondent – Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), which was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette No.168 dated 09.07.1999 proposing to acquire 35 sq. meters of land on the side leading from Ashoknagar Bridge to Bakaram and the said notification was published in two daily newspapers on 13.07.1999 and the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 03.08.1999. It is stated that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12.07.1999 dispensing with Section 5(A) enquiry. For passing of the award notice under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act dated 28.07.1999 was served on the petitioner on 03.08.1999 informing that the award of enquiry will be held on 13.08.1999. 3. On 13.08.1999 the petitioner appeared through her counsel and the matter adjourned to 30.08.1999 and on 30.08.1999 it was again adjourned to 06.09.1999 and again to 14.09.1999. On 14.09.1999 petitioner filed certain documents in support of her claim and requested time for adducing evidence and accordingly the enquiry was posted to 21.09.1999. It is stated that from 21.09.1999 there was no communication and all of a sudden the first respondent issued form 10 notice on 20.08.2001 stating that 35.88 sq. yards of land has been acquired by the Government under the Act for road widening and as per Section 4(1) notification dated 09.07.1999 the petitioner shall vacate and hand over the possession before 21.08.2001 and accordingly the petitioner was directed to surrender the property. Questioning the said action of the respondents, this writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings requiring him to vacate the said premises within one day as illegal and arbitrary. 4. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed in the counter with regard to Section 4(1) notification dated 09.07.1999 published on 13.07.1999 and publication of Section 6 declaration on 12.07.1999 but it is stated that the award was passed on 30.07.2001. It is further stated that after passing of the award the property vests with the Government and accordingly notice under Section 10 was issued on the petitioner for vacating the premises and handing over possession. It is further stated that in view of the discrepancy in the house number sought to be acquired with that of the title deed, basing on which the petitioner is claiming her right, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act and the amount is about to be deposited in the civil Court. 5. Admittedly, no amount has been deposited in the civil Court and the proceedings of the award also have not been furnished. However, it is stated that the award was passed on 30.07.2001, which is after lapse of two years of Section 6 declaration dated 12.07.1999. If that be so, the land acquisition proceedings are lapsed and admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the said land. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings by way of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act including the award are liable to be set aside. Under Section 11-A of the Act, if no award is passed within two years from the date of publication of declaration, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. In the instant case, admittedly the award has not been passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 12.07.1999 whereas the award has been passed on 30.07.2001 i.e. after lapse of two years. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 10, 2008 DSK