HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12044 of 2010 Date:28.12.2011 Between: Ponnada Nageswara Rao And three others. ..... Petitioners And: The District Collector, Srikakulam District and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.Viswanadham Counsel for Respondent No.1 & 3: GP for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri N.V.Ramanujam Standing Counsel for Central Government The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not re-conveying the lands admeasuring Hec.0.11-0 in Sy.No.74/8, Hec.0.11-5 in Sy.No.74/6, Hec.0.11-5 in Sy.No.74/5 and Hec.0.13-0 in Sy.No.74/9 of Amadalavalasa Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District, in pursuance of letter vide Rc.No.338/2004, dated 10.11.2004, of respondent No.3 addressed to respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioners are the owners of the above- mentioned lands, which were notified for acquisition, vide notification, dated 14.08.1994, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of construction of Post office building and staff quarters. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings have culminated in passing of award, dated 26.06.1997. Seven years thereafter, the petitioners approached the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Amadalavalasa, with a representation for re-conveyance of their acquired lands on the ground that neither compensation was paid to them nor physical possession of the lands was taken from them. The Mandal Revenue Officer has, thereupon, issued express memo, dated 21.09.2004, to the Mandal Revenue Inspector, wherein he has called for a report, after enquiry, within three days, on the following three aspects: (1) Whether the awardees and their legal heirs are small farmers? (2) Whether the acquired lands are under cultivation, and if so, who are the present enjoyers? and (3) Whether any alternative suitable site is available?” Having waited for six years thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 4. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable as the possession of the lands was taken on 30.08.1995, and that, once possession was taken, re- conveyance of the acquired lands is not permissible under Section 48 of the Act. On merits, it was pleaded that on the requisition given by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Srikakulam, the lands of the petitioners along with others located in Sy.Nos.74/5 to 74/9 of Amadalavalasa Village, Srikakulam District, were notified for acquisition for construction of Post office building and staff quarters; that draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was approved on 04.06.1994 and the same was published in district gazette on 14.08.1994; that its substance was published in two local daily newspapers on 23.09.1994 and 08.10.1994, and in the locality on 20.09.1994; that notice in Form-3 was issued under Section 5-A of the Act on 17.12.1994 inviting objections from the land owners and then enquiry was held; that, thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the district gazette on 27.05.1995; that its substance was published in two local daily newspapers on 22.06.1995 and 27.06.1995, and in the locality on 04.06.1995; thereafter, notices, dated 25.06.1995, under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act, were published; that, thereafter, award No.1/97-A, dated 26.06.1997, was passed fixing Rs.30,000/- per acre as compensation; and that, notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were served on the land owners on 06.08.1997. It is further stated that the land owners have submitted applications on 30.08.1997 under Section 18 of the Act for reference of the matter to the civil Court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, representing respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that as the petitioners have not received compensation amount, their applications for reference of the matter to the civil Court were not accepted. The counter-affidavits filed by both the respondents specifically denied the claim of the petitioners that they are still in possession and enjoyment of the above-mentioned lands. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it was asserted that respondent No.3 has taken physical possession of the lands, who, in turn, handed over the same to respondent No.4 on 30.08.1995, under land delivery receipt signed by the respective parties and witnesses. A copy of the same has been filed as Ex.R-3. It is further stated that when the construction of the Post office building and staff quarters was commenced, the petitioners started obstructing the same. The facts discussed above would show that the land acquisition proceedings got concluded with the passing of the award as far back as 26.06.1997. Seven years thereafter, some of the land owners have ventured to approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for re-conveyance of their lands, who readily entertained them and issued the above-mentioned express memo. Under Section 16 of the Act, when the award is passed and possession of the land is taken, the same absolutely vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. From Ex.R-3, it is evident that possession of the lands was delivered to respondent No.4 as far back as 30.08.1995. Except the self serving statement of the petitioners, no material is produced before this Court to show that they are in physical possession of the above- mentioned lands. As the acquired lands are absolutely vested in the Central Government, the question of re- conveying the same to the petitioners would not arise. Under Section 48(1) of the Act, the Government is vested with the liberty to withdraw from acquisition of the land of which possession has not been taken. Thus, even if the Government intends to withdraw the lands from acquisition, it cannot do so after taking possession of the land. Even in such cases where possession is not taken, whether the land should be withdrawn from the acquisition or not is solely at the discretion of the Government and the petitioners cannot compell the Government to withdraw the lands from acquisition. The petitioners who slept over the issue for more than 1 ½ decades have sought to assert their claim for de-notification. In my opinion, this attempt on the part of the petitioners to get back their lands is not sanctioned by law. More over, the present Writ Petition, which is filed more than 14 years after passing of the award, suffers from uncondonable laches. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is wholly without any merit and substance. Hence, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. For indulging in vexatious litigation and for holding up the construction of Post Office building by filing this Writ Petition and securing an interim order, the petitioners are saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to respondent No.4. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 27.05.2010, is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.15162 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th December 2011 DR