THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13772 of 2009 ORDER: The District Collector, Vizianagaram, respondent No.2 herein, issued notification, dated 25.10.2006, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire an extent of Acs.8.75 cents of land of Addapuseela, Bit No.3 of Parvathipuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District for Thotapalli Barrage Unit-III, Parvathipuram. The land of the petitioners to an extent of Acs.2.88 cents was included. Urgency clause was invoked and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on the next day i.e. on 26.10.2006. Consent award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No.3 herein on 24.04.2007. However, no award was passed in respect of the land acquired from the petitioners. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare that the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act in respect of the land of the petitioners are illegal, null and void and non est. The reason pleaded by the petitioners is that no award was passed in respect of their land so far and by operation of Section 11-A of the Act, entire proceedings vis-à-vis their land have lapsed. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit. The fact that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act is admitted. It is stated that the award in respect of the land of the petitioners was not passed, since they did not cooperate. It is also stated that the possession of the land of the petitioners was not taken, since no award was passed. Heard Sri P.Raja Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The facts pleaded by the petitioners are not in dispute. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued simultaneously in the year 2006 and admittedly, no award was passed in respect of the lands of the petitioners so far. The reason pleaded by the respondents is that the petitioner did not cooperate for it. Respondent No.3 does not have to depend upon the cooperation or the consent of the petitioners for passing an award. Almost for the entire extent of land, consent award was passed. If the petitioners did not give their consent, respondent No.3 could have proceeded with the award enquiry and passed an award under Section 11 of the Act. Section 11-A of the Act directs that in case no award is passed within two years from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the entire proceedings would lapse. The fact that the award was passed in respect of major portion of the land covered by the notification does not save the consequences flowing from Section 11-A of the Act in respect of the land as regards which award is not passed. The provision does not provide for any exception and no reason pleaded by the Land Acquisition Officer can be taken into account. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act, dated 25.10.2006 and 26.10.2006 respectively, published by respondent No.3 in so far as they pertain to the land of the petitioners, admeasuring Ac.1.55 cents and Ac.1.33 cents in various survey numbers of Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District mentioned therein, are set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents to acquire the said land in accordance with law, if the same is still needed for the project. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 09.02.2011. kdl