HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.10115 and 10257 of 2008 Date : 09.12.2011 Between : A.Bhupathi Reddy. …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.10115 and 10257 of 2008 COMMON ORDER : As the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same and as both the writ petitions are ﬁled on similar set of allegations, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.3.36 gts. in Sy.No.61/A and Ac.2.30 gts. in Sy.No.33/A2 of Rampalli village of Mancherial Mandal in Adilabad District. The aforesaid lands are notiﬁed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for constructing Sripada Sagar reservoir. Respondents have issued the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passed the award only to the extent of Ac.0.09 gts. in Sy.No.61/A and Ac.2.27 gts. in Sy.No.33/A2. The writ petition in W.P.No.10115 of 2008 is ﬁled seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not paying compensation to the total extent of land notiﬁed i.e. Ac.3.36 gts. in Sy.No.61/A, as illegal and arbitrary. Similarly, the writ petition in W.P.No.10257 of 2008 is ﬁled, seeking to declare the action of respondents in not paying compensation for the entire extent of Ac.2.30 gts. in Sy.No.33/A2, as illegal and arbitrary. Respondents have ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. In the counter, it is stated that when further surveys were conducted, it was found that only an extent of Ac.0.09 gts. of land is aﬀected at Full Reservoir Level (FRL) of the proposed reservoir in Sy.No.61/A, as such, they have taken possession of only Ac.0.09 gts. of land out of the total extent of Ac.3.36 gts. of petitioner’s land and only for such extent, award is passed. Even with regard to Sy.No.33/A2, it is stated that the petitioner has participated in the award inquiry and ﬁled a claim statement claiming compensation only to the extent of Ac.2.27 gts., and in that view of the matter, award is passed only to that extent, under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (Consent Award), and in view of the same, it is not open for the petitioner to seek for passing of award for his entire land. When the matter is taken up, petitioner has appeared as party-in-person and the learned Government Pleader has produced the record. Petitioner himself has stated before this Court that he is continuing in possession to the extent of Ac.3.27 gts. in Sy.No.61/A, but he seeks for payment of compensation for the entire land only on the ground that the respondents have notiﬁed the entire land i.e. Ac.3.36 gts. in the said survey number. When the respondents have not taken possession of the entire land and when no award is passed within the Statutory period, the acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed. When it is admitted that the petitioner is continued to be in possession of Ac.3.27 gts. out of Ac.3.36 gts., for which extent, no award is passed within the Statutory period, the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed, and the petitioner, while cultivating the said land, cannot seek any directions for payment of compensation. It appears, only on the mistaken impression that he is entitled for compensation for the entire extent when respondents have notiﬁed the total extent of Ac.3.36 gts., the writ petition in W.P.No.10115 of 2008 is ﬁled by the petitioner. When award is already passed to an extent of Ac.0.09 gts., and there is no need of remaining extent of land in Sy.No.61/A, the petitioner is not entitled for any directions for payment of compensation for the total extent. Even with regard to the land covered by Sy.No.33/A2, I have perused the original statement ﬁled by the petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. In the said proceedings, he ﬁled a statement stating that he is the owner to an extent of Ac.2.27 gts., and claimed compensation only to that extent. Based on such statement made by the petitioner, a consent award is passed under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. In that view of the matter, after receiving compensation amount pursuant to the consent award, he cannot seek for any directions for payment of compensation for the remaining Ac.0.03 gts. of land. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any merit in these writ petitions for grant of directions as prayed for. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th December 2011 ajr