IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9254 of 2002 Between: 1 S. Pandurnga Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao R/o. Sujathanagar, Chinamushidiwada, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2 P. Nageswara Rao S/o. Venkateswara Rao Snehalatha Towers, Opp: Nirmala Convent, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 K. Koteswara Rao S/o. Krishna Rao C-12, Auto Nagar, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 L. Venkateswara Rao S/o. Ramayya Konukollu, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. 5 A. Rajendra Prasad S/o. Sripathi Rao Hotel Dwaraka Inn Restuarant, Station Road, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Y. Babu Rao S/o. Mallikarjuna Rao R/o. M.I.G.-104, Autonagar, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7 T. Rama Mohana Rao S/o. Radha Krishna Rao R/o. Surya Bagh, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 8 B.M.V. Kranthi Kumar S/o. Subba Rao Yendada Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9 K. Nagabhushanam S/o. Kotayya Chinaparupudi, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District. 10 D. Subba Rao S/o. Raghavayya J.S.Enterprises, Hindustan Lever Agent, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 11 V. Radha Krishna Murthy S/o. Raghuramayya C/o. D. Subba Rao, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 12 O. Ramayya S/o. Kotayya Plot No.C-9, A.P.I.E, Autonagar, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 13 P. Narasimha Rao S/o. Sri Krishna Murthy Ajamjahi Mills, Show Room, Surya Bagh, Visakhapatnam, Visakhaptnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector (Land Acqusition), Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Sepcial Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for Respondent NO.1: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Smt.V. Preeti Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare Award No.2/96 dated 12.07.1996 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam Development Authority-respondent No.2 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents situated in S.No.81 of Kurmannapalem village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and null and void. Heard Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent No.1 and Smt. V. Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. An extent of Acs.11.05 cents of land in various survey numbers situated at Block No.13 of Kurmannapalem village, Visakhapatnam Taluk and District was notiﬁed for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 27.07.1984. The present writ petition is concerned with the land admeasuring Acs.2.50 cents in S.No.81, notiﬁed for acquisition. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the said land. Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 purchased an extent of Acs.1.15 cents by registered sale deed dated 19.04.1983 while petitioner Nos.7 to 13 claim to have purchased the balance extent of land under agreement of sale dated 10.07.1984 and taken possession in pursuance of the same. The said land acquisition proceedings were the subject matter of diﬀerent writ petitions namely W.P.No.3291 of 1986 and W.P.No.10487 of 1987 and the latter pertains to S.No.81 filed by the third parties. Interim stay of all further proceedings was granted by this Court on 20.07.1987 in W.P.No.10487 of 1987 and the said order ceased to exist with the dismissal of writ petition by this Court on 17.10.1995. Therefore, respondent No.2 conducted award enquiry on 15.04.1996 and 13.05.1996 and passed the impugned award on 12.07.1996. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised several contentions, which need not be adverted to in the view I am taking. The main contention advanced by him is that the impugned award passed by respondent No.2 is illegal and without jurisdiction for the reason that he failed to pass the award within the statutory period of two years as mandated by Section 11-A of the Act. He further pointed out that on the same ground that the acquisition proceedings got lapsed with the expiry of two years period from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, respondent.No.2, excluded Acs.0.32 cents of land in S.No.81 and Acs.3.36 cents of land in S.No.82 while he passed the award in respect of Acs.2.50 cents belonging to the petitioners in S.No.81 and other lands. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also that of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Smt. V. Preeti Reddy. The following facts are not in dispute. The last of the publications under Section 6 of the Act was made on 21.11.1985. This Court granted stay of all further proceedings in W.P.No.10487 of 1987 on 20.07.1987. The said writ petition was dismissed on 17.10.1995. By the time interim stay was granted, one year seven months and twenty-eight days elapsed from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The period of two years excluding the period for which interim stay was granted by this Court for making the award expired on 19.02.1996. Admittedly, the award was passed on 20.07.1987, which is far beyond the statutory limit of two years prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act. In deed, conscious of the fact that the award was being passed beyond two years, respondent No.2, as mentioned above, excluded Acs.0.32 cents and Acs.3.36 in S.Nos. 81 and 82 respectively. It is wholly incomprehensible that having realized that the award was passed beyond the period prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act, respondent No.2 proceeded with the passing of award in respect of the balance extents of land including the extent of Acs.2.50 cents belonging to the petitioners while excluding the lands in S.Nos.81 and 82. In my considered view, the action of respondent No.2 not only falls foul of Section 11-A of the Act, which mandates that if the award is not passed within the period of two years, the whole acquisition proceedings shall lapse, but also constitutes invidious discrimination. Respondent No.2 is not entitled to treat similarly placed persons diﬀerently and by doing exactly the same, his action is hit by equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the abovementioned reasons, the award to the extent it relates to Acs.2.50 cents of land belonging to the petitioners in S.No.81 is quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.13817 and 11435 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ (C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.) 14th October, 2008 Js.