*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition Nos. 8765 & 18610 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: %29-03-2011 # G. Krishna Prasad and another ..petitioners And $ State of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (LA) Department, Hyderabad and othersThe Singareni Collieries Company Limited & others ..Respondents !Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Hari Sreedhar & BH. Bharathi Devi ^Counsel for respondents : SC for RR 1 to 3 & G. P for Land Acquisition < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.8765 & 18610 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: The petitioners in both the writ petitions are owners of different extents of land in Sy.No.351 of Bomraspet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The erstwhile Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, which has now become the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, has taken up the project of formation of Outer Ring road, encircling Hyderabad City, and quite large number of sub-urban villages. That needed acquisition of huge extents of land. The road was to pass through Bomraspet village. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 23-04-2005, proposing acquisition of the said land. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 30-04-2006. The petitioners state that they raised several objections for the acquisition, at various stages, particularly as to frequent changes of alignment, yielding to pressures. It is alleged that on 27-03-2007, as many as three notices were issued, proposing to conduct award enquiry and requiring the petitioners to appear before the the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), i.e. the 3rd respondent herein, on 11-04-2007. The petitioners contend that, when they appeared before the 3rd respondent, no survey or enquiry has taken place on 11-04-2007. The petitioners state that to their surprise, their watchman received notice dated 24-02-2010, purported to be under Section 12(2) of the Act, stating that an award was passed on 18-04-2008. They contend that at no point of time, they are served with the notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act. It is stated that on their verification, notices dated 27-03-2008 were issued by the 3rd respondent, proposing to hold award enquiry on 08-04-2008, whereas in the award, it was mentioned that the award was conducted in the year 2006 itself. The petitioners challenge the award passed in respect of their lands. They state that, neither any compensation was paid, nor offered to them. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the lands of the petitioner was issued on 23-04-2005, and declaration under Section 6 was issued, one year thereafter, i.e. 30-04-2006. The petitioners participated at various stages of the proceedings, and objected to the acquisition of the land. However, they do not challenge the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. Instead they have participated in the subsequent proceedings also. The three sets of notices dated 27-03-2007 were dispatched to the petitioners. The purport of all the notices is that, the survey of the land and further verification will be undertaken on 11-04-2007. The petitioners state that no survey or any other proceedings have taken place on 11-04-2007. Thereafter, the petitioners were not served with proceedings, till March, 2010, when a notice dated 24-02-2010 was served, under Section 12(2) of the Act. The object of issuing notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is to inform the parties that an award is going to be pronounced. The award naturally must precede an enquiry under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Irrespective of the nature of enquiry, the award must be pronounced on the date, specified under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Curiously enough, the notice served on the petitioners, in the year 2010, made a mention to the award dated 18-04-2008. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Act was amended in the year 1984, fixing the timeframe, for publication of notifications, pronouncement of award, etc., and the consequences that flow, on account of failure to follow the timeframe. The 3rd respondent does not appear to have kept that in view. Therefore, the very notice dated 24-02-2010, under Section 12(2) of the Act is untenable in law. The petitioners state that on their verification they came to know that notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act were dispatched by the 3rd respondent on 27-03-2008. If one ignores the illegality of the notice under Section 12(2), there may exist, a possibility to sustain the award, if, in fact, it was preceded by a meaningful enquiry. There may be some possibility for the petitioners not being able to participate in the enquiry for the reasons, which cannot be attributed to the 3rd respondent. If an enquiry was taken up, as proposed, through the notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the award would become legal, even if the effected persons did not participate in the enquiry. A perusal of the award discloses that the enquiry was held on 12-06-2006. The relevant paragraph of the award reads as under: “The individual notices as required u/s 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) of the L.A. Act have been issued to the individuals and got served on the concerned and the general notice as required u/s.9(1) and 10 of the L.A. Act was got published at the prominent places of the locality inviting the land owners and interested persons to file their claims showing their interest and title over the lands under acquisition. Award enquiry was conducted on 12-06-2006 at Special Deputy Collector’s office Unit-IV, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. Some of the land owners and interested persons have appeared before the undersigned and given consent showing their title, share and their nature of interest over the lands under acquisition” There is no reference to notices dated 27-03-2008, issued under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act. If award enquiry was held on 12-06-2006, the notices dated 27-03-2008 are totally untenable, if not meaningless. It has already been observed that on 27-03-2008 as many as three sets of notices were issued. One such notice is in Form No.7, issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. It was clearly mentioned that the enquiry was held on 11-04-2007, finally. However, the award enquiry is said to have been held on 12-06-2006. In the field of compulsory acquisition of the land, payment of compensation and passing of award for that purpose assumes utmost significance. Passing of an award is an exercise in which the Land Acquisition Officer is supposed to deal with the contentions of the land owners; ascertain the market value, and determine the compensation. The date of pronouncement of the award assumes significance, from the point of view of seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Such an important aspect dealing with valuable lands / rights of the petitioners was reduced to an empty exercise, by the 3rd respondent. The award passed by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained in law, and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-03-2011. KO