THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.5916 of 2000 Date of Order: 02-12-2010 Between: N.Koteswara Rao ..Petitioner And 1. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.5916 of 2000 ORAL Order: Petitioner is the son of displaced person on the acquisition of land in Sy.Nos.79 and 80 covered by Award 3/1996 dated 06-04-1996 for the purpose of establishing industrial units under A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). It is admitted that the lands acquired from the petitioner are assigned land. As per the condition imposed at the time of acquisition of the land, the individual entrepreneur has to provide employment to one member in the family in the industrial unit. The Indian Oil Corporation—3rd respondent set up its bottling plant in the land of the petitioner and it is functioning. The petitioner said to have been made a representation for providing employment to his son, who is fully qualified. The respondents have not responded to the said representation till date. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the respondents in not providing employment to the son of the petitioner in Indian Oil Corporation, Kondapalli in its bottling plant after acquiring the land of Ac.1.65 cts. as arbitrary, illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to provide employment to the son of the petitioner viz., N.Bhaskar Vinod. Opposing the writ petition, the 4th respondent—APIIC filed counter affidavit stating that an extent of Ac.128.72 cts. of land in Kowluru village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District was acquired covered by Award No.3/1996, dated 06-04-99 for expansion of IDA, Kondapalli. The possession of the land was taken under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and handed over the same on 5-09-998 to APIIC, who in turn handed over the possession of the land to HPCL on the same day for establishing Oil and Gas terminal point. While so, one Garimella Venkatappaaiah and others filed W.P.No.9633 of 1982 against the Land Acquisition Officer; Collector, Krishna District and State of A.P. represented by Secretary, Industries and Commerce (prior to passing of Award No.16/84, dated 19-12-1984) questioning the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of their lands, to which APIIC is not a party. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the LAO to conduct enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. During 5-A enquiry, the petitioners have filed objections claiming compensation at Rs.16,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the orders passed in W.P.No.9633 of 1982 the petitioners therein carried the matter in W.A.(Sr)No.4324 of 1984 and pending the same the parties have entered into a compromise that the respondents shall pay compensation at Rs.16,000/- per acre and shall provide suitable employment consistent with the qualification of the members of each of the families of the appellants covered by award No.16/1984. On disposal of writ appeal, the LAO passed Award No.16/84, dated 19-12-1984 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.113.35 cts. of Kondapally village. Therefore, APIIC included a condition in the allotment orders issued in favour of the allottees of the land in IDA, Kondapally (acquired vide Award No.16/1984, dated 19-12-1984) stipulating that the allottee has to provide suitable employment to one of the family members whose lands were acquired. The APIIC handed over possession of the land on 05-09-1995 to an extent of Ac.128.72 cts. out of which Ac.11.05 cts. in Sy Nos.59 (part), 74, 75, 79, 80, 86 (part), 88, 89, and 92 of Kowluru village, G.Konduru Mandal is assigned land; an extent of Ac.1.55 cts. situated in Sy.Nos.74 (part), 75 and 59 (part) was deleted since HT power lines were passing through the said extent of land. Thus, total extent of Ac.9.50 cts. of land covered by the present writ petition was handed over by the revenue authorities directly to HPCL for construction of oil plant. No condition was stipulated in respect of land Ac.128.72 covered by Award No.3/1996. Therefore, petitioner cannot insist for providing employment. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel for 4th respondent—AAPIIC. Indisputably the lands of the petitioner, which are assigned lands, were resumed for public purpose i.e. for expansion of IDA, Kondapally, and allotted to the 4th respondent; in Award No.3/1996 separate compensation was fixed towards developmental charges of the land at Rs.3,825/- covered by Award No.3/1996, dated 06-04- 1996. Either in the award or in the allotment letter of the 4th respondent alienating the land to the 3rd respondent no condition has been specified for providing employment to the son of the writ petitioner or other similarly situated persons whose lands were acquired. In the absence of the same, petitioner cannot insist for providing employment to the land owners as did in Award Nos.16/1984 and 17/1984, dated 19-12-1984 where the parties have entered into an agreement during the pendency of the writ appeal. The same benefit cannot be extended to the son of the petitioner herein. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 02-12-2010 Murthy