THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.No.1127 of 2003 Date of Order: 29-11-2010 Between: 1. The Principal Secretary to Govt. Of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ..Appellants and 1. Gundu Mallaiah and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.No.1127 of 2003 Oral Judgment: (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in W.P.No.9672 of 1999, dated 13-04-1999 wherein a consent order was passed allowing the writ petition directing the respondents—writ appellants to complete the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and pass an award within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Sub-section (3) of Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure bars filing of an appeal against the decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that an extent of Ac.9.41 cents of land belonging to them was acquired for formation of CADA road from 0/0 to 4/480 within the limits of Takkalapadu Village, Miryalguda Mandal, Nalgonda District by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 19-07-1992, whereas possession of the land was taken earlier to that date. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the compensation both as on 01-07- 1953 and also as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated 19-07-1992, but so far the compensation has not been paid to them nor any notice of the passing of award was issued. Therefore, the writ petitioners sought for a direction to the writ appellants to pay the compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as per the Award No.24/1993-94, dated 30-09-1993 by declaring the application of provisions of the Nagarjuna Sagar Project (Acquisition of Lands) Act 32 of 1956 for the acquired lands in Award No. 24/1993-94, dated 30-09-1993 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as illegal and arbitrary. We have perused the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 19-07-1992, but on disbandment of LA.CADA unit, Tekulapally, the subsidiary work of the scheme has been entrusted to the present unit. Therefore, draft notification and draft proposals submitted to the office of Land Acquisition Officer were approved in G.O.Rt.No.213, dated 29-02-1992 and Government Memo No.15405/D/2/91-1, dated 29-02-1992 and published in A.P.Gazette issue No.SRP.9, dated 12-03-1992 that the substance was also published in the village on 10-04-1992 and that the same have also been published in two daily newspapers; one in Udayam on 18-07- 1992 and in Krishna Patrika on 19-07-1992. Therefore, the last such publication of the notification was only on 19-07-1992 and the said date of publication in the newspapers should be taken into consideration for determination of the compensation. Further, once the possession was not taken pursuant to the issuance of the notification, the earlier notification which was published in the Gazette was lapsed for non-publication in the newspapers, which necessitated to issue further notification in the year 1992. If that be the case, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3274-75 of 2003, dated 10-08-2005, on which reliance is placed, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, there is no dispute that the possession was taken earlier to the issuance of the notification, but not on issuance of the notification, therefore, it cannot be treated that the possession was taken in compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer is under obligation to pass an award as consented by him before the learned Single Judge of this Court, which resulted in passing the impugned order. It is always open for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award and pay the amount due to the claimants it is open for the parties to work out remedies or seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. Under those circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition. We see no merits in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. 29-11-2010 Murthy