IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION Nos.5440 AND 18670 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION Nos.5440 OF 2008: Between: Padala Satyanarayana Reddy. … Petitioner And The District Collector, East Godavari District At Kakinada and three others. … Respondents WRIT PETITION Nos.18670 OF 2008: Between: Padala Satyanarayana Reddy. … Petitioner And The District Collector, East Godavari District At Kakinada and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Venkatesh. (In both the WPs) Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. (In both the WPs) . This Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- Since the petitioner and the subject matter of both these two Writ Petitions are common, they are heard and being disposed of by this common order. The land admeasuring Ac.1.14 cents in Survey No.37/1 of Srikrishnapatnam village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 30-4-1996. The said land was notiﬁed for acquisition by notiﬁcation dated 17-1-2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for digging main canal of Venkatanagaram Pumping Scheme. As enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, the petitioner ﬁled Writ Petition No.17830 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 23-8- 2007. By the said order, this Court quashed the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Subsequent to the disposal of the said Writ Petition, enquiry under Section 5-A was held and a fresh declaration under Section 6 was issued by reducing the extent to Ac.0.69 cents. The said declaration is questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5440 of 2008 on the main ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to him in the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act. While this Writ Petition is pending, respondent No.2 passed award on 31- 5-2008 in respect of Ac.7.21 cents of land, which included the extent of Ac.0.69 cents belonging to the petitioner. This Award is questioned in Writ Petition No.18670 of 2008 by the petitioner on the ground that no enquiry under Section 11(1) of the Act was held by respondent No.2. At the hearing, Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that with the passing of the award, the cause in Writ Petition No.5440 of 2008 does not survive for consideration. However, he made strenuous eﬀorts to convince this Court that the award is liable to be set-aside on the ground that no enquiry was held by respondent No.2. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner received notice under Section 9(3) of the Act on 12-4-2008. He, however, submitted that the petitioner has not attended the award enquiry ﬁxed for 19-4-2008. It is his contention that even if the petitioner is not present, during the award enquiry, it is incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer to hold enquiry before passing the award. As the learned counsel for both the parties agreed for disposal of both the Writ Petitions, at the admission stage, no counter-aﬃdavits are ﬁled by the respondents, but, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition received instructions. According to her, as the petitioner, admittedly, did not attend the award enquiry, respondent No.2 passed the award on the basis of the material available on record. Under Section 11(1) of the Act, on the day ﬁxed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry is adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8, and into the value of the land on the date of publication of the notice under Section 4(1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming compensation and shall make an award. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner neither ﬁled his objections after receipt of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act nor attended the oﬃce of respondent No.2 for participating in the enquiry. Therefore, there is no need for respondent No.2 to hold any enquiry. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner that no enquiry was held is illusory and is accordingly rejected. As I ﬁnd no procedural illegality and irregularity in respondent No.2 passing the award, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed; however, with liberty to the petitioner to seek reference of the dispute, for ﬁxation of proper compensation under Section 18 of the Act, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by respondent No.2. -------------------------- ---------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 20-10-2008 MNR