IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE WRIT PETITION NO.17789 OF 2009 Between: Smt Verna Satyavathi … Petitioner And: The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-District Collector and others ….. Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.17789 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court issued Rulenisi on 14.09.2009. On 26.08.2009, while ordering notice before admission, this Court also directed let the status-quo existing as on today shall be maintained for a period of two weeks. However, it is specifically recorded that it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the possession had already been taken on 26.02.2008. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the respondents. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the arbitrary action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question to an extent of Ac.1.00 in survey No.43/1, Pesaramallu village, Gudlavaller Mandal, Krishna District, without communicating the award No.23 of 2008 dated 26.5.2008 made by the Land Acquisition Officer, without following the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as the “Act”) is illegal, and void and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s land in question without due process of law and pass such suitable orders. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit in detail had been filed. Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had taken the Court to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also had pointed out the different dates given relating to the aspects of taking possession before this Court on 26.8.2009 and also in the counter affidavit and in the F.I.R. The learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, it is doubtful whether possession had been taken at all in accordance with law. The possession of the petitioner relating to the said land not to be disturbed except due process of law. The learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the contents of the counter affidavit as well. As per the counter-affidavit, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would maintain that it is no doubt true that on some oral instructions, a date had been mentioned before this Court and the same had been recorded but however on verification of records, a clear stand had been taken in the counter-affidavit by that dates, it cannot be said that the due procedure had not been followed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition also placed the records before this Court and pointed out to the relevant points on record and would maintain that in the light of the records produced before this Court, apart from the averments made in the counter affidavit, it had been clearly established that the due procedure had been followed and only with a view to further delay the Land Acquisition proceedings, the writ petition had been filed and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the counter-affidavit as well and also the relevant material papers which had been placed before this Court. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is the original owner of the land in question and the name of the writ petitioner had been recorded in all revenue records and thus the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land in question by raising crops. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the Government of Andhra Pradesh wanted to acquire the land by issuing 4 (1) notification dated 12.7.2006 by dispensing with 5-A enquiry. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court questioning the said action by way of W.P.No.8365 of 2008 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition by an order dated 17.4.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections stating that so many Government lands are available besides his land inspite of that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider his objections and without following the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer improperly conducted the award enquiry and without communicating the said award to the petitioner, while sending Form-9 to the petitioner and thereafter the respondents did not take any steps to take possession of the petitioner while referring the matter to the Civil court by the Land Acquisition authorities and the same was numbered as LAOP No.119 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudiwada and the same is pending. It is also the case of the petitioner that when he came to know about the irregularities and illegality committed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, bringing all these facts in respect of the high handed action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the Joint Collector, Krishna District on 18.8.2008 and a copy of the representation also had been placed before this Court. Further it is stated that a specific stand had been taken by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that if the writ petitioner is unable to prove as to the lands available in respect of the Government lands in the village in question, the petitioner is ready to surrender the lands in question to the Government and the petitioner has no other lands. As per the instructions of the Government, a small extents of the lands cannot be acquired. These aspects had not been thought of. Further certain averments were made relating to violation of the procedure for payment of compensation for acquiring the land in question. Further a specific stand had been taken that the petitioner was not paid the compensation for the land acquired and disturbed the possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and hence the petitioner is entitled to continue in the land in question till the payment of compensation is made by the concerned authorities and till the disposal of the representation by the Joint Collector, Krishna District. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court. A counter-affidavit given by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Gudivada Division, Krishna District, 2nd respondent herein in detail had been filed by the respondents. The respondents also filed certain documents along with the counter-affidavit namely 1) D.N. Gazette, 2) Form-6, 3) Form-7, 4) Award enquiry statement, 5) Gift Deed No.739/06 dated 7.7.2006, 6) Form-9, 7) 31 (2) reference letter, 8) L.A.O.P No.119/2008 notice, 9) Application dated 23.6.2008, 10) Objection letter dt.18.8.2008, 11) Panchanama dated 18.12.2008, 12) Status-quo order letter dated 18.8.2008 and 13) FIR and paper clippings. Several averments had been denied by the respondents. It is the case of the respondents that the Government had taken a policy decision to develop model villages and towns on the concept of saturation of identified basic infrastructure facilities and welfare measures by following focused area approach. The housing is one of the programmes identified under ‘Indiramma Programme’ to meet the total demand and to achieve the object of providing of permanent houses to all under ‘Indiramma Programme’. Pesaramilli village of Gudlavalleru Mandal is declared as a model and Adarsa village under ‘Indiramma Programme’. On verification, it is found that 31 poor families are not having even own houses or house sites for constructions of residential house and are in dire need of house sites. The beneficiaries have been selected duly conducting Gram Sabha in the village. There is no Government land or poromboke land available in Pesaramilli village for grant of house sites to these beneficiaries. The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Inspector of Gudlavalleru Mandal and village Revenue Officer, Pesaramilli village have inspected the lands in the village to accommodate the beneficiaries. They have selected the patta land to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in R.S.No.43/1 Part which is adjacent to the village and very much suitable for construction of houses. There are no structures in the above said lands. Accordingly the Tahsildare, Gudlavalleru has submitted the Land Acquisition proposals of Draft Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada vide his letter dated 5.6.2006. After due scrutiny of the proposals received from the Tahsildar, Gudlavalleru Mandal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada has submitted the said proposals of Draft Notification to the District Collector vide letter dated 16.6.2006 for approval. The District Collector, Krishna District has approved the Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 5.7.2006 duly invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of L.A. Act and dispensing with the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act. The said draft notification was published in the District Gazette, two daily news papers and locality as follows: Sl.No. Mode of publication Date of publication of Draft Notification 1 Krishna District Gazette 05.07.2006 2 Andhra Jyothi 12.07.2006 3 Pledge English Daily 12.07.2006 4 Substance in the locality 15.07.2006 Thereupon the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the Collector, Krishna and was published in the District Gazette, two daily news papers and locality as follows: Sl.No. Mode of publication Date of publication of Draft Notification 1 Krishna District Gazette 26.07.2006 2 Eenadu 03.08.2006 3 Deccan Chronicle Daily 03.08.2006 4 Substance in the locality 06.08.2006 It is stated that at that stage the petitioner filed W.P.No.15268 of 2006 before this Court against the acquisition of lands in question. The same was disposed of at the stage of admission with a direction to the respondents to conduct 5-A enquiry. Accordingly after due service of notices, the enquiry under Section 5-A was conducted on 14.9.2006. Thereafter the record of 5-A enquiry together with Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Act were submitted to the Collector, Krishna. The Collector, Krishna while rejecting the objections as they are not tenable, approved the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the same was published in the District Gazette, two daily news papers and locality as follows: Sl.No. Mode of publication Date of publication of Draft Notification 1 Krishna District Gazette 13.12.2006 2 Vasalaandhra 28.12.2006 3 Deccan Chronicle Daily 29.12.2006 4 Substance in the locality 30.12.2006 It is also stated that thereupon the notices under section 9(1) and 10 & 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued and published/served for conducting Award enquiry on 23.01.2007. At that stage without attending the Award enquiry the petitioner had again approached this Court and obtained interim stay orders dated 2.2.2007 in W.P.No.1900 of 2007. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court in the common judgment dated 28.12.2007 wherein the petitioner was given liberty to raise all legally sustainable objections before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada and the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada has been directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and consider her objections to the proposed acquisition. It is also stated that the petitioner filed objections and availed the opportunity of personal hearing on 14.2.2008. Thereafter the Collector, Krishna district has rejected the objections raised by the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.G4.3085/2006, dated 21.3.2008 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. The notices under Section 9(1) and 10 & ((3) and 10 of the Act were issued and published/served for conducting Award enquiry on 8.4.2008. The petitioner attended the Award enquiry and proved her title. Accordingly the Award No.23 of 2008 dated 26.5.2008 has been passed under Section 11 of the Act awarding the compensation to the petitioner. Subsequently Form-9 notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued and sent to the petitioner dated 13.6.2008 informing the essential contents of the Award to the petitioner. It is further stated that since the petitioner had not consented to receive the compensation, the matter had been referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada vide letter dated 15.12.2008 and the compensation amount of Rs.1,73,161/- was deposited in the reference Court under Section 31(2) read with Sec.30 of the Act on 17.12.2008. Thereafter the possession of the land was taken on 18.12.2008. The case was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.119 of 2008 and pending before the reference Court. In the meanwhile the petitioner submitted representation dated 23.6.2008 seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the Act and since the application was with in the period stipulated under Section 18(2) of the Act and the same was referred to the reference Court. At this stage, the petitioner willfully and wantonly suppressing all facts much less the taking of possession by the Government and seeking of reference under Section 18 by her, obtained status-quo orders dated 26.8.2009 from this Court in W.P.No.17789 of 2009. Further a specific stand had been taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that the fact remains that on receipt of Form-7 notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the petitioner had attended the Award enquiry on 8.4.2008 and claimed compensation over the land in the subject matter deposing that the land was gifted to her by her father vide Registered Gift Deed No.739 of 2006. Accordingly the Award No.23 of 2008 was passed on 26.5.2008 awarding the compensation to the petitioner. Thereupon Form-9 notice dated 11.6.2008 under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued and sent to the petitioner on 13.6.2008 informing the essential contents of the Award to the petitioner. Having received the Form- 9 notice on 17.6.2008, the petitioner had filed the reference application dated 23.6.2008 under section 18(1) of the Act. Therefore, being attended the Award enquiry on 8.4.2008 and having known the essential contents of the Award No.23 of 2008 dated 26.5.2008 by way of receiving Form-9 notice the petitioner cannot contend that she is deprived of the same. It is also stated that by the date of publication of Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land in the subject matter was in possession and enjoyment of the father of the petitioner namely Sri A. Rama Krishna Rao. After publication of the Gazette notification under Section 4(1) in this case on 5.7.2006, the father of the petitioner had gifted their land vide Registered Gift Deed dated 7.7.2006 to evade the acquisition of the land in guise of small farmer. However the petitioner become interested person in terms of Section 3 (b) of the Act by giving deposition along with supportive documents during Award enquiry on 8.4.2008 and hence the compensation in this case was awarded to her. It is further stated that it is a fact that in the first instance the urgency clause under section 17(4) of the Act was invoked and the section 5-A enquiry was dispensed with. However, in pursuance to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.15268 of 2006 the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 14.9.2006 and consequent to that the Draft Declaration under section 6 of the Act was approved by the Collector, Krishna district and got published afresh. The W.P.No.8365 of 2008 referred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court as it was devoid of merits. Since the petitioner had filed objections and availed personal hearing on 14.2.2008, she cannot seek the opportunity of filing objections repeatedly. It is further stated that the Award enquiry in this case was conducted on 8.4.2008 and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry duly giving deposition to that effect. Thereafter the Award No.23 of 2008 dated 26.5.2008 has been passed under Section 11 of the Act and consequently Form-9 notice dated 11.6.2008 under section 12(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner informing the essential contents of the Award and he same was received by the petitioner on 17.6.2008. Notice under section 12(2) is a clear intimation of making Award requiring owner or person interested to receive compensation awarded under section 11 of the Act. Award copy need not be communicated along with the notice as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1995(3) SCC 30. It is also stated that since the petitioner has not consented to receive the compensation on receipt of notice under section 12(2) of the Act, the matter has been referred to the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gudivada and the compensation amount was deposited in the reference Court under section 31 (2) read with Section 30 of the Act on 17.12.2008. Further a specific stand had been taken that thereafter the possession of the land was taken on 18.12.2008 duly conducting panchanama and pattas were prepared and handed over to the Housing Department to take up housing construction and hence the petitioner cannot contend that the possession still remains with her. The L.A.O.P.No.119 of 2008 is pending before the reference Court under Section 30 of the Act since the petitioner is not consented even to receive compensation from the reference court. It is further stated that the Award in this case was passed on 26.5.2008 and the 12(2) notice was received by the petitioner on 17.6.2008. Therefore, filing of objections dated 18.8.2008 at post award stage is not maintainable. It is stated that one of the objections dated 18.8.2008 is regarding the compensation and the petitioner had already filed a separate application dated 23.6.2008 seeking reference under section 18(1) of the Act and the same was referred to the reference Court. It is also stated that with regard to the allegation of vacant Government lands, there are no suitable vacant Government lands in the village and hence the petitioner failed to furnish the particulars of such available lands either before this Court or before the respondents. The land in the subject matter belongs to Sri A. Rama Krishna Rao who owns Ac.10.96 cents in the village and after publication of Gazette notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 5.7.2006 he has gifted the land already proposed for acquisition to her daughter vide Registered Gift Deed dated 7.7.2006 to evade the acquisition of the said land in guise of small farmers. Hence the contention is not maintainable. It is also stated that since already reference had been made and several of the supported documents are now before the reference court, it is the petitioner who did not turn up to receive the compensation on receipt of Form-9 notice and hence the compensation was deposited in the reference court. The petitioner may at any time receive the compensation from the reference court. Taking possession of the land on 18.12.2008 after depositing the compensation on 17.12.2008 is within the ambit of Law. Thereupon the possession of the land is absolutely vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Nowhere in the Act it is stated that the possession has to be taken within two years from the date of Draft Notification. The petitioner willfully and wantonly suppressing all the facts much less taking of possession by he Government and seeking of reference under Section 18(1) by him obtained the status-quo orders dated 26.8.2009 in W.P.No.17789 of 2009. Thereupon contravening the status quo orders issued by this Court the petitioner high handedly entered into the land with his men on 6.9.2009 stating that he has obtained stay orders in favour of him and started agricultural activities against the act of which a complaint has already been lodged before the Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station. Since the petitioner had availed the opportunity of filing objections and personal hearing on 14.2.2008, the objections dated 18.8.2008 which were filed after receipt of Form-9 notice by her at Post Award Stage cannot be entertained and there is no provision in he Act for disposal of objections filed at this stage. It is also stated that the possession of the land in this case was taken by the Revenue authorities on 18.12.2008 and since then the land absolutely vests with the Government. However the petitioner willfully suppressing the fact of taking of possession by the Government before this Court obtained status-quo orders dated 26.8.2009 in W.P.No.17789 of 2009 and high handedly entered into the land and started agricultural activities against the act of which a complaint has already been lodged before the Station House Officer, Gudlavalleru Police Station. The petitioner has not made out any case warranting with the interference of this Court. As stated supra, a specific stand had been taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit and the relevant documents as referred supra, had been placed before this Court namely 1) D.N. Gazette, 2) Form-6, 3) Form-7, 4) Award enquiry statement, 5) Gift Deed No.739/06 dated 7.7.2006, 6) Form-9, 7) 31 (2) reference letter, 8) L.A.O.P No.119/2008 notice, 9) Application dated 23.6.2008, 10) Objection letter dt.18.8.2008, 11) Panchanama dated 18.12.2008, 12) Status-quo order letter dated 18.8.2008 and 13) FIR and paper clippings. It is no doubt true that there is some discrepancy, may be on oral instructions some date had given and the same had been recorded by this Court. But the records had been produced before this Court and a specific stand had been taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit relating to the taking of the possession. However, taking possession cannot be doubted in any way, especially in the light of the series of events which had been narrated in detail in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Hence this Court is thoroughly satisfied and that especially in the light of the specific stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit and also the panchanama and also the L.A.O.P No.119 of 2008, the writ petition being devoid of any merits the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition, is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Date:17.09.2009 P.S.NARAYANA,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.17789 OF 2009 ORDER: Date:17.09.2009 Gk.