IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 27403 of 2005 And WRIT PETITION NO : 28122 of 2007 WRIT PETITION NO : 27403 of 2005 Between: 1 Uppala Sairam S/o Sri Kamaraju R/o Yeleswaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District 2 Majji Appala Swamy S/o Sri Appanna R/o Yeleswaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram East Godavari District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Yeleswaram East Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate WRit, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of mandamus declaring that the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the land Acquisition act, Published in A.P. Gazette on 22-06- 2001 proposing to acquire the lands situated in S. No. 388/3 of an extent of Ac. 2/97 cts belonging to the 1st petitioner and an extent of Ac. 0.91 cts in S. No. 388/2 belonging to the 2nd petitioner at Yeleswaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, nulla nd void and non-est inthe eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to drop allfurther proceedings in this regard and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.SUDESH ANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION WRIT PETITION NO : 28122 of 2007 Between: Akunir Satyavathi W/o.late Sri Sambasiva Rao R/o.Yeleswaram village and mandal E.G.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada-533001 2 The Revenue Divisonal officer, peddapuram-533437, E.G.District 3 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue office, Yeleswaram 533429, E.G.District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the notification issued under sec.4(1) of the land Acquistiion Act published in AP Gazettee on 22.6.2001 proposing to acquire the lands situated in S.No.388/1 of an extent of Ac.0.90 cents belonging to the petitioner herein situated in Yeleswaram village and mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, null and void and non est in theeye of law and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following common order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 27403 of 2005 And W.P.No. 28122 of 2007 04-03-2009 Oral Common Order: In both the writ petitions the challenge is to the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) published in the Gazette on 22-06-2001 proposing acquisition of lands in survey Nos.388/3; 388/2 and 388/1 of Yeleswaram village and Mandal, East Godavari District, of an extent of Ac.02-97 cents belonging to the 1st petitioner and Ac.0-91 cents belonging to the 2nd petitioner (in W.P.No. 27403 of 2005) and an extent of Ac.0-90 cents belonging to the petitioner (in W.P.No. 28122 of 2007). This acquisition has had a meandering and tortuous litigative history. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 22-06-2001. As per the notification, the District Collector, East Godavari District invoked urgency under Section 17 (4) of the Act and dispensed with the process of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 28-06-2001; in the locality on 28-07-2001 and in the local newspapers on 31-07-2001. The petitioners (in W.P.No. 27403 of 2005) earlier filed W.P.No. 3441 of 2002 and on 22-02-2002 obtained an order o f status-quo in W.P.M.P.No. 4233 of 2002 in that writ petition. On 26-11-2002 W.P.No. 3441 of 2002 was disposed of directing the Land Acquisition Officer to complete the award enquiry within three months and pass an award. However without proceeding to pass an award, the Land Acquisition Officer on 19-12-2002 issued a notice in Form-3 purporting to be under Section 5-A of the Act soliciting objections from the petitioners (in both the writ petitions) and scheduling the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act to 27-01-2003. On 27-01-2003 objections were submitted by the petitioners to the process of acquisition. Without proceeding to pass an order dealing with the petitioners’ objections to the acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act on 28-06-2003. It is also the admitted factual scenario that no draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued subsequent to the notice dated 19-12-2002 issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5-A of the Act. W.P.No. 4670 of 2004 was then filed by six (6) landowners of these lands, who on 12-03-2004 obtained stay of dispossession in W.P.M.P.No. 6117 of 2004. This writ petition was disposed of on 01-11-2004 granting liberty to the petitioners therein to approach the State for exclusion of their plots from acquisition. Thereafter the petitioners in W.P.No. 27403 of 2005 filed this writ petition and on 06-01-2006 obtained an order of status-quo in W.P.M.P.No. 35196 of 2005. Another landowner under the same acquisition notification has filed the other writ petition (W.P.No. 28122 of 2007) and on 28-12- 2007 obtained an order of status-quo. Possession was taken on 25-03-2004 from the petitioners herein notwithstanding that urgency was invoked in the draft notification in June, 2001. So much for the legitimacy and rationality of the exercise of discretion (under Section 17-A of the Act), in invoking urgency. No award has yet been passed though there is no order of any Court interdicting the passing of an award and notwithstanding that on 26-11-2002 the earlier W.P.No. 3441 of 2002 was disposed of directing passing of an award within three months. Since the last date of the publications under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e., in the locality was on 30-06-2001 and the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act i.e., in the newspapers was 31-07-2001, the award should have been passed by 31-07-2003 i.e., within two years from the date of the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act. However orders of status-quo were granted in W.P.No. 3441 of 2002, interdicting the power of the State to pass an award i.e., for a period of about 278 days from 22- 02-2002 to 26-11-2002. If that period were reckoned, the date by which the award could legitimately be passed stood extended to 05-05-2004. There was another hiatus in the authority of the respondents to pass an award. The grant of an order of status-quo in W.P.No.4670 of 2004 i.e., during 12-03-2004 to 01-11-2004 and if that period were also excluded, in any event the award ought to have been passed by 26-12-2004. The 2nd respondent (in the counter filed in W.P.No.28122 of 2007), admits that the award ought to have been passed by 23-12-2004. He however claims legitimacy to the continuance of the possession taken on 25-03-2004 by contending that since possession was taken, the limitation of two years period would not operate. If that were the only fact, the respondents would have been right in so contending. It however requires to be noticed that the Land Acquisition Officer had consciously issued the Form-3 notice on 19-12-2002 soliciting objections from the petitioners to the process of acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act. This notice tantamounts to the abrogating the earlier decision to invoke urgency and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, as set out in the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act which was published in the Gazette on 22-06-2001. The acquisition therefore was (after 19-12-2002), in pursuit of a process where there was no urgency invoked nor the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act dispensed with. Possession could only have been obtained (under the changed circumstances), under the provisions of the Act, after passing of an award and not prior thereto. This position in law is indisputable and is also not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Be that as it may. It is also the admitted position that after 19-12-2002 (the date on which notices in Form-3 soliciting objections were issued by the Land Acquisition Officer), no draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and since no award has yet been passed, on the undisputed and demonstrable factual substratum, the State is disabled from pursuing acquisition pursuant to the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 22-06-2001, in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. No declaration under Section 6 of the Act could also be issued now in view of the limitation prescriptions in Section 6 (1) (i) & (ii) of the Act. The entire process of acquisition has therefore abated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the analysis above, the notification issued by the 1st respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Act for acquisition of the specified extents of land in survey Nos. 388/3; 388/2 and 388/1 of Yeleswaram village and mandal, East Godavari District is quashed. The respondents shall forthwith restore to the petitioners’ possession of the land from which they were unlawfully dispossessed by the official respondents on 25-03-2004. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies against the official respondents and the State for recovery of any damages for unlawful dispossession of property. For the arbitrary conduct by the State of dispossessing the petitioners (on 25-03-2004 after issuing a notice dated 19-12-2002 calling for the landholders objections to the acquisition, under Section 5-A of the Act) and for persisting with the act of dispossession, without authority of law the respondents are directed to pay costs to the petitioners in an amount of Rs.2,500-00 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) in each of the writ petitions. The payment of costs as above would not be in derogation of any right of the petitioners to claim damages from the State for violation of their constitutional and legal rights for being subjected to unlawful dispossession of property otherwise than in accordance with the procedure established by law (under the provisions of the Act). The costs shall be paid by the official respondents to the petitioners in each of the writ petition within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the State to identify the officer (s) responsible for the grossly negligent exercise of power and to recover the amount of costs (awarded herein) from such officer (s), so however that the costs shall be paid by the State to the petitioners in the first instance. The writ petitions are allowed as above with costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 04-03-2009 Pvks