THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22341 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents constructed an irrigation canal in Kokkilagadda Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District by the side of an old bridge. The approach road to the new bridge was to be formed and the same needs acquisition of an extent of Acs.0.03 cents of land, owned by the petitioner. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 01.05.2007. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. However, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11061 of 2007. Initially an order of status quo was granted. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of on 03.12.2007 directing that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held. In the meanwhile, either not being aware of the existence of the order of status quo or otherwise, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 30.09.2007. Notwithstanding this development, an enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act held in compliance with the directions of this Court. The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam, respondent No.2 herein, passed an order, dated 11.02.2008, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, an award was passed on 10.04.2008 and possession was taken on 10.07.2008. The petitioner feels aggrieved by various proceedings issued by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit furnishing the details of various developments that have taken place in the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. The petitioner owns a rice mill in the village. Ac.0.03 cents of land owned by the petitioner was needed for providing an approach road to the bridge and notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued. The petitioner, no doubt, had a genuine grievance about dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and accordingly, filed W.P.No.11061 of 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents brought to the notice of this Court about that development. The writ petition was disposed of directing that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act be held and accordingly, it was held. Since the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not set aside, the respondents took the same into account and proceeded to pass award on 10.04.2008. There are several irregularities in the entire process. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was to be published after 5-A enquiry, has preceeded it. Be that as it may, the proceedings have reached finality. Not only award was passed, but possession was also taken. The matter is said to have been referred to civil Court and that the compensation was deposited into the Court, obviously under Section 30 of the Act. This Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served at this stage, in case, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the award passed in respect of the acquired land are set aside. On the other hand, they would delay and further complicate the matter. Instead, the petitioner can be permitted to withdraw the compensation and that the present reference can be treated as the one under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that: (1) the lapses in the proceedings that have taken place under the Act vis-à-vis the land of the petitioner be treated as condoned; and (2) the reference made in respect of the award, dated 10.04.2008 covering the land of the petitioner is treated as the one under Section 18 of the Act and that the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the compensation that was deposited into the Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 30.04.2010. kdl