WP/1267/2011 of Pungoti Harish Kumar Vs The Government of A.P. on 31 December 2015

Conclusion

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of theLand Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer(3[rd] respondent) in passing an Award dated 30.09.2010 inR.C.No.E/1121/2008 in respect of land admeasuringAc.7.27 guntas in Sy.No.848 of Kodimial village,Karimnagar District, as illegal and arbitrary.

The facts which lead to filing of the Writ Petition areas under :

The 4[th] respondent herein is the grandfather of thepetitioner. An extent of Ac.7.27 guntas in Sy.No.848 ofKodimial village which was sought to be acquired by theDistrict Collector is an ancestral property allotted to oneP.Vidyasagar Rao, who is the father of the petitioner bythe 4[th] respondent herein in an oral family settlement,which took place in 1995. It is said that since then thepetitioner and his family members are in possession of thesame, though the revenue records show the name of the4[th] respondent. During the lifetime of the father of thepetitioner, a portion of the land was soldaway as housesites to several persons under different registered sale deeds. While things stood thus, a notification underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.07.2008came to be issued intending to acquire land inSy.Nos.410, 411, 412 and 848. The petitioner is said tohave raised objections during the 5A enquiry conductedby the land acquisition officer, but however, the same wasrejected and a draft declaration under Section 6 of theLand Acquisition Act came to be published on06.10.2008. At that point of time, the petitioners hereinfiled W.P.No. 22515 of 2008 questioning the 4(1)notification and Section 6 draft declaration. The petitioneralso sought for exemption of his land from acquisition. Initially this Court granted stay of the proceedings, buthowever, by its order dated 12.02.2009 disposed of thewrit petition. As the Land Acquisition Officer wasproceeding further without considering the objectionsraised by the petitioner, he approached this Hon’ble Courtvide W.P.No.12953 of 2009 which was disposed of by anorder dated 18.01.2010 on the same lines as inW.P.No.22515 of 2008. It is said that inspite of the orderspassed by this Court, the Land Acquisition Officer passedan Award without calling for objections from the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

By an order dated 28.01.2011 this court whileissuing Rule nisi passed the following order:

“The Award was passed on 30.09.2010. However, the fundswere not made available to the Land Acquisition Officer as on thatdate. It is only through proceedings dated 12.01.2011, that the District Collector accorded sanction to the Land Acquisition Officer to draw theamount and pronounce the award. An award can be deemed to havebeen passed only when it is pronounced and the pronouncement cantake place only when the amounts are ready. For all practicalpurposes, the award was not passed till 12.01.2011. Hence, there shall be interim suspension, as prayed for.”

A counter and vacate stay petition is filed by the 1[st]respondent disputing the allegations made in the petition.According to him, there was an oral partition between theunofficial respondent and his son by name VidaysagarRao before the village elders in respect of the lands inSy.Nos.410, 411, 412 and 848, which were allotted toVidyasagar. It is sated that insofar as Sy.No.848 isconcerned, an extent of Ac.0.14 guntas was acquired forlaying pipeline of Sripada Sagar Project andcompensation was paid which was not objected to by thepetitioner herein. It is further stated that the petitionerneither raised any wet crops nor cultivated the said land. He has denied the allegation of collusion between himselfand the Government officials for acquiring the landbelonging to the petitioner. It is further stated by him thatthe objections raised by the petitioner were considered bythe authority and as such the question of reconsideringthe objections while passing the award would not arise.

The land acquisition officer also filed his counterdenying the allegations made. It is his case that theobjections were considered by the District Collector and basing on the facts, a draft declaration under section 6was approved and as such the question of reconsideringthe objections would not arise. In view of the above, it issaid that the same does not warrant interference.

From a reading of the material on record, it is clearthat a draft notification under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act was approved on 24.07.2008 and thesame was published in all news papers. Notices in Form3 u/s.5A were issued to the interested persons videreference No.E/1121/2008 dt:27.07.2008. Objectionswere filed by all the parties and the authority after hearing,submitted proposals for passing an order u/s.5A of theAct. Later a draft declaration u/s.6 came to be publishedon 06.10.2008. After the enquiry u/s.5A of the Act thepetitioner herein filed W.P.No.22518 of 2008. By an orderdated 16.10.2008 this Court in W.P.M.P.No.29330 of 2008granted interim stay. Subsequently on 12.02.2009 thisHon’ble court disposed of the said writ petition, therelevant portion of the order is as under :

“According to the learned Government Pleader for LandAcquisition the award is not yet passed.

Under those circumstances, the Writ Petition itself is disposedof directing the L.A.O. to take into consideration the objections filed bythe petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent and pass appropriate Award, asper law. However, if there is any serious dispute as to title, the mattermay be referred to the competent civil court under Section 30 of theLand Acquisition Act.”

Since the authorities were proceeding further without considering his representation, the petitioner againfiled W.P.No.12953 of 2009, after the draft declarationdated 06.10.2008 made under Section 6 of the Act. By anorder dated 18.01.2010 this Court disposed of the writpetition reiterating what has been said earlier. Therelevant portion of the order is as under :

“Therefore, I thought it appropriate to direct the LandAcquisition Officer to consider the claim of title and interest of thepetitioner over the notified land and pass appropriate Award inaccordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. If there is any rivalclaim with regard to the compensation to be paid to the claimants, theLand Acquisition Officer is at liberty to refer the matter under Section30 of the Act, to a competent civil court.”

Though both the orders of this Hon’ble Courtcategorically state that the claim of title and interest of thepetitioner shall be considered by the Land AcquisitionOfficer before passing the award, but strangely the LandAcquisition Officer did not consider the same whilepassing the Award. The same is apparent from the order,the relevant portion which indicate the same is as under :

“In light of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., theobjection was received by the petitioner Sri P.Harish Kumars/o.VidyaSagar Rao, r/o.Kodimial, for an extent of 7.27 acres in respect ofSy.No.848. The local enquiry and personal hearing was conductedabout the objection along with the enquiry report of the objection, theD.D. proposals submitted to the Collector, Karimnagar vide this officeRef.No.E/1121/2008 dt:27.09.2008 and the Collector, Karimnagarapproved the D.D. proposals. The petitioner objection has beenconsidered at the time of the D.D. stage by the Collector, Karimnagarand L.A.O. & Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial. Therefore theconsideration of the objection of the petitioner is not arise at this awardstage.”

A reading of the Award clearly shows that the LandAcquisition Officer did not take into consideration theobjections raised by the petitioner before passing theAward on the ground that such objections wereconsidered at the time of 5A enquiry. But it is to be notedthat in the writ petitions, which were filed after 5A enquiryand Section 6 draft declaration, this Court directed theLand Acquisition Officer to consider the objections beforepassing the award. The facts on record clearly disclosethat the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award withouttaking into consideration the contents of the order passedby this Court in the two writ petitions.

The material on record further discloses that tilldate, possession of land is not taken and the interim orderdated 28.01.2011 passed by learned single judge of thisCourt also show that for all practical purpose there was noAward till 12.01.2011. The interim suspension as orderedby the Court is still in force till today.

Without going into the merits of the claim andcounter claim made by either of the parties, the writpetition is allowed setting aside the Award dated30.09.2010 in R.C.No.E/1121/2008 on the file of the LandAcquisition officer and RDO, Jagtial and consequentlydirecting the land acquisition officer to pass a fresh awardas early as possible preferably within a period of 4 monthsfrom the date of receipt of the order, after taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner. Nocosts. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions pending ifany in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_______________________

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

Date:31.12.2015

GM