THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.28188 OF 2010 DATED: 29.12.2011 Between: Gunta Sesh Reddy and 38 others. .. Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Its Principal Secretary, TR & B, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 17 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.28188 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners herein claim to be the residents of Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, whose lands were acquired under the Notification dated 9.2.2009 published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Act) for the purpose of formation of Bypass road to Nunna village from Vijayawada – Nuzvid Road. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents 4 & 5 in not passing the award fixing compensation for the lands acquired. It is alleged that the respondents 4 and 5 have been deliberately delaying the award enquiry so that the acquisition proceedings would lapse under Section 11-A of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners sought a Mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to pass an award and pay compensation to them. The petitioners also sought a declaration that the 5th respondent’s letter dated 12.10.2010 calling for remarks of the 3rd respondent (requisitioning department) regarding placing the matter before the State Level Negotiation Committee for finalisation of the compensation payable is arbitrary and illegal since the said procedure adopted by the 5th respondent was contrary to the provisions of A.P. Land Acquisition (State Level Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1998. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the respondents 9 to 17 herein had earlier filed W.P.No.2153 of 2010 challenging the notification dated 9.2.2009. The petitioners herein who gave their consent for the acquisition got themselves impleaded to W.P.No.2153 of 2010 and contested the same. After hearing both the parties, the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.09.2010. Challenging the said order dated 21.09.2010 in W.P.No.2153 of 2010, the respondents 9 to 17 herein filed Writ Appeal No.941 of 2010. By order dated 26.11.2010, the Division Bench directed that status quo existing as on that date should be maintained. Subsequently, by order dated 29.04.2011 the said order of Status quo was vacated subject to the condition that the acquisition proceedings should abide by final decision of Writ Appeal No.941 of 2010. The respondents 9 to 17 herein carried the matter to the Supreme Court and while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petitions, the Supreme Court by order dated 25.07.2011 directed that the parties should maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. Subsequently the petitioners herein filed I.A.Nos.7-9 of 2011 before the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the Award under Section 11 of the Act before the expiry of the statutory period of two years. The said applications were disposed of by the Supreme Court by order dated 9.9.2011 observing as under: “In this context, it is sufficient to observe that this Court has not granted any stay on the passing of award which the officer concerned is required to pass in accordance with the provisions of the Act.” It is also relevant to note that in the counter-affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the main writ petition the allegation that the Land Acquisition Officer was deliberately delaying the award proceedings has been categorically denied and it is stated that the award would be passed following due process of law within time. As could be seen, the main writ petition is filed aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the respondents 4 and 5 in conducting the award enquiry and apprehending that the procedure being adopted may result in nullifying the entire acquisition proceedings. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated 16.11.2011 stating that during the pendency of this writ petition, a proposal was made by the respondent No.3 stating that if part of a newly proposed bypass road, which will intersect Vijayawada – Nuzvid road is utilized, certain portion of the alignment of R & B Bypass road can be dropped leading to reduction in both the area to be acquired and road to be formed. As per the said proposal, the acquisition would be reduced to an extent of Ac.13-95 cents and it would be for the benefit of the land owners as well as the State. Therefore, the 4th respondent requested the 1st respondent to consider the proposals for reducing the land sought to be acquired and that a decision is yet to be taken by the Government. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 9.12.2011, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that after considering the proposal for the revised alignment, it was decided by the 1st respondent to complete the land acquisition process and pass awards as per the original alignment and that Memo No.9478/R/VI(2)/2011-6, dated 2.12.2011 was issued by the respondent No.1 to that effect. The relevant portion from the said Memo may be extracted hereunder: The Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) State Roads in his letter 6th cited has informed that NHAI has not indicated any time frame for grounding the NHAI Vijayawada Bypass. They have also not indicated who would bear the cost of formation of service road being proposed for the portion of bypass which will be utilized for diversion of the state Highway traffic. In addition, ENC has also informed that if Vijayawada bypass is to be utilized that present traffic at Nunna Market cannot be avoided as the same is between proposed Nunna bypass starting point and proposed NHAI Bypass. In view of the above and keeping in view the uncertainty regarding grounding of NH Vijayawada bypass and cost implications of the service roads suggested by the CGM, NHAI and also that future NHAI concessionaire of Vijayawada Bypass may object to part of their road being utilized for diverting State Highway traffic without toll and since Land Acquisition proceedings will lapse in respect of all survey numbers involved in his work during February, 2012 and that there are no legal impediments in passing the L.A. awards, the Collector, Krishna District is requested to complete Land acquisition process and pass awards as per the original alignment. He is also requested to furnish the action taken report in the matter. Having regard to the above decision taken by the 1st respondent, there cannot be any impediment for passing the award and completing the land acquisition proceedings. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit dated 23.11.2011 filed by the 4th respondent, the statutory period prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act for passing the award would expire on 17.02.2012. As held in JEET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA [1] the purpose of Section 11-A is to see that the award is made at an early date so that the claimants whose lands have been acquired would get compensation as soon as possible. In JEET SINGH’S case (1 supra) it was further held as under: By acquiring the land and by not making the award, the government would be acting against the interest of the persons whose lands had been acquired. If the government acquires the land and does not give the amount of compensation to the land owners at an early date, it would adversely affect the land owners because they would be without their land and, therefore, they would be losing their source of income and at the same time, they would also not get the compensation. So as to make sure that such a situation does not arise, Section 11A had been introduced. Thus, the purpose behind introduction of the said Section was to see that the award is made at least within two years so that the compensation is paid to the persons whose lands are acquired at an early date. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court by order dated 9.9.2011 made it clear that no stay has been granted on the passing of award which the officer concerned is required to pass in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents 4 and 5 are bound to pass the award in accordance with the provisions of the Act within the time prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to take the necessary further steps following due process of law in terms of the Memo dated 2.12.2011 issued by the 1st respondent. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.12.2011 gbs [1] (2011) 10 SCALE 516