WP/12989/2005 of Baddam Prabhakar, Vs The District Collector, on 26 December 2005

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are six in number, with aprayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofwrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the District Collector, Ranga ReddyDistrict, at Hyderabad-1[st] respondent in issuing the Notification No.G2/5812/98,dated 28.10.1998, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (forshort, ‘the Act’) as amended by Act XXXVIII of 1923, published in A.P. Gazetteon 06.11.1998 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of theConstitution of India.

2. The petitioners are owners and possessors of the lands comprising SurveyNos.10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Attapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal,Ranga Reddy District. Notification bearing No.G2/5812/98 dated 28.10.1998came to be published in A.P.Gazette on 06.11.1998 proposing to acquirevarious lands in Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Districtfor public purpose to wit for construction of new Sewerage Treatment Plants(STPs 25 MLD capacity). Under the said notification, lands admeasuringAc.16.00 guntas comprising Survey Nos.10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20belonging to the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the purpose ofconstruction of STPs. While issuing the notification, enquiry under Section 5-Aof the Act came to be dispensed with by invoking the urgency clause undersub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. Draft Declaration under Section 6 ofthe Act came to be published on 04.12.1998. No further action has been takenby the Government in pursuance of the Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6declaration. Subsequently, on 13.06.2005 the subordinates of the respondentsalong with the Mandal Revenue Inspector visited the lands and asked thepetitioners to vacate the lands. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know thatthe lands belonging to them are sought to be taken possession by therespondents in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of theAct which was published in the A.P.Gazeette dated 06.11.1998. Though Section4(1) Notification was issued on 28.10.1998, no further proceedings were takenby the respondents under the Act. Under Section 11-A of the Act, an awardunder Section 11 of the Act shall be made by the Collector within a period oftwo years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award ismade within the said period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of theland shall stand lapsed. Initiation of further proceedings according to thepetitioners, after lapse of about six or seven years from the date of declarationunder Section 6 of the Act are not legal and proper and therefore, the same areliable to be declared as arbitrary and illegal.

3. The respondents filed counter-affidavits. One K.Mallesham has sworn to thecounter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is stated in thecounter-affidavit that General Manager (Engineering) HMWS and SB,

Hyderabad has sent requisition for acquisition of lands for construction of STP25 MLD capacity at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict. The lands proposed to be acquired have been demarcated and theAssistant Director, S&I.R., Ranga Reddy district has sent the attested sub-division record. Accordingly, Ac.63.13 guntas comprising Survey Nos.2, 3, 4, 5,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 507, 508, 109, 510, 511,512, 513, 514 and 520 situated at Attapur village, Rajendranagar Mandal,Ranga Reddy District have been identified. Notification under Section 4(1) anddeclaration under Section 6 of the Act have been submitted to the DistrictCollector, Ranga Reddy District, which have been approved and published inthe A.P.Gazette No.RR-20, dated 06.11.1998 and RR-21 dated 09.11.1998respectively. Aggrieved by the above notification, the persons interested overthe lands have filed writ petition before this Court contending that they havepurchased the lands comprising Survey No.9 and constructed houses. Theysought for stay of all further proceedings including their dispossession from thelands. This Court directed the respondents not to dispossess them from thelands pursuant to the notification No.G2/5812/98 dated 28.10.1998 published inEenada dated 02.11.1998 vide Orders in WPMP No.42058 of 1998 in WPNo.34172 of 1998 dated 09.12.1998. Hence, possession of the lands could notbe taken as envisaged under Sections 9(1), 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act. Thesaid writ petition ended in dismissal. The petitioners therein filed objections foracquisition of their plots existing in Survey No.9 on 09.12.1998. The personsinterested over Survey Nos.10 to 14, 16 to 19 have also filed petition seekingtime for filing relevant documents to establish their rights over the said land on27.12.1998. Subsequently, award enquiry was fixed on 10.11.2003. Thepersons interested over the lands have filed their claims/objections on04.12.2003. Possession of the lands under acquisition as mentioned in Form-10has been taken on 18.06.2005. The persons interested over the landscomprising Survey nos.10 to 14, 16 to 19 have filed petition seeking time forfiling relevant documents to establish their rights over the said lands on27.12.1998. Acquisition proceedings have been delayed due to pendency ofWrit Petition No.34172 of 1998 and interim orders passed therein vide orderdated 09.12.1998 in WPMPNo.42058 of 1998. I deem it appropriate to referparas.6 to 8 of the counter affidavit and they are:

“6. The persons interested have also filed objections in acquisition of their plots existing in Sy.No.9 on 09.12.1998. The persons interested overSy.Nos.10 to 14, 16 to 19 have filed petition seeking time for filing relevantdocuments to establish their right over the said land on 27.12.1998.Subsequently the award enquiry was fixed on 10.11.2003. The personsinterested over the lands have filed their claims/objections on 04.12.2003.The notice U/S.15-A of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.04.2005 was alsoserved over the persons interested to file the documentary evidence insupport of their title over the lands under acquisition by 16.05.2005. A noticein Form-10 and adjourned enquiry dated 02.06.2005 fixing the date of enquiryon 25.06.2005 were also served. The possession of the lands underacquisition as mentioned in Form-10 have also been taken possession on18.06.2005. The persons interested over the lands Sy.Nos.10 to 14, 16 to 19have filed petition seeking time for filing relevant documents to establish theirrights over the said land on 27.12.1998.

7. In reply para.5 it is submitted that the lands under acquisition are locatedon the banks of River Moosi and grass fodder is being grown. The marketvalue of the lands under acquisition has also been approved by the Collector,Ranga Reddy district on 18.06.2005. The award will be passed dulyobserving the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act in duecourse.

8. In reply to para.6 it is submitted that acquisition proceedings have beendelayed due to filing of the W.P.No.34172/98 and granting of stay vide Orderin WPMP No.42058 of 1998 in WP No.34172/98 dated 09.12.1998. The saidWP was disposed by the Hon’ble Court on 06.04.2005. There are nodevelopments over the lands Sy.Nos.10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 tilldate. There is only the fodder growth over the lands. The lands are fully B.C.soil lands. It is not true to say that the present petitioners have invested hugeamounts and developed the said lands. It is not true to say that the effect ofthe delay in completing the acquisition proceedings is that of depriving thepetitioners of the compensation at the market value. The delay is caused dueto filing of the W.P.No.34172/98 and granting of stay vide order in WPMPNo.42058 of 1998 in WP No.34172/98 dated 09.12.1998. The said WP wasdisposed by the Hon’ble Court on 06.04.2005.”

4. 3[rd] respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit. One V.Raja Reddy hassworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3[rd] respondent. It is statedin the counter-affidavit that the Government has taken a decision to acquire thesaid lands for the purpose of construction of new STP 25 MLD capacity andaccordingly notification under section 4(1) and draft declaration under Sec.6 ofthe Land Acquisition Act came to be issued. The Land Acquisition Officerhanded over possession of land of Ac.63-13 guntas to HMWS & SB on 18.6.2005 and the Board has deposited an amount of Rs.8.00 crores towardscompensation.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned GovernmentPleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learnedStanding Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that in view ofSec.11-A the entire land acquisition proceeding in respect of the lands of thepetitioners lapsed as no award under Sec.11 had been made within two yearsfrom the date of declaration under Sec.6 of the L.A. Act. He refers Section 11-Aof the Act in support of his submission.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for therespondents 1 and 2 submits that the proceedings could not be completedbecause some of the land owners obtained stay of all further proceedings andafter disposal of the writ petition filed by some of the land owners, furtherproceedings have been commenced and enquiry is in progress and therefore,acquisition proceedings are saved under the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent submits thatpossession of Ac.63.13 guntas of land has been handed over to the 3[rd]respondent and the 3[rd] respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.8.00 crorestowards the compensation, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed.

9. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Section 4(1) Notification has beenpublished in the A.P.Gazette on 06.11.1998 and Section 6 declaration has beenpublished in the A.P.Gazette on 09.11.1998. The latest of the three publicationsof Section 6 Declaration is the paper publication in Pledge, English daily, dated06.12.1998. The issue involved in the writ petition is very simple and it iswhether the proceedings initiated for acquisition of the lands are lapsed under

10. It is the contention of the petitioners that since award has not been passedunder Section 11 of the Act within the stipulated period of two years from thedate of publication of the declaration, the entire proceedings for acquisition oftheir lands are lapsed under Sec.11A of the Act. Whereas, it is the contentionof the respondents that proceedings could not be concluded because of theinterim orders secured by some of the land owners.

11. Before referring Section 11-A of the Act, I make myself clear that thepetitioners are concerned with Ac.16.00 guntas of the land comprising SurveyNos.10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Attapur Village, which was sought to beacquired for the purpose of construction of new STPs 25 MLD capacity. Moreprecisely the petitioners claimed ownership over the lands as detailedhereunder:

Survey No. 10 -- Ac. 2.18 guntasSurvey No.11 -- Ac. 1.34 guntasSurvey No.12 -- Ac. 0.27 guntasSurvey No.15 -- Ac. 2.10 guntasSurvey No.16 -- Ac. 2.18 guntasSurvey No.18 -- Ac. 1.32 guntasSurvey No.19 -- Ac. 1.37 guntasSurvey No.20 -- Ac. 2.24 guntas __________________

Total --Ac.16.00 guntas

__________________

The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for therespondents 1 and 2 strenuously contends that award proceedings could not becompleted within the period stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act because some of the land owners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34172 of 1998and secured interim order dated 09.12.1998 in WPMP No.42058 of 1998. Itappears some of the owners of the lands, which are the subject matter of thenotification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6, approached thisCourt by filing WP No.34172 of 1998. They also secured interim orders inWPMP No.42058 of 1998. The interim orders passed in the said writ petitionreads as follows:

“ORDER:

Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition takes notice and requested two weekstime for getting instructions and for filing counter. In the meanwhile, therespondents are directed not to take possession of the land in questionpursuant to the notification in No.G2/5812/97, dt.28.10.1998 published inEenadu dt.02.11.1998”

The lands claimed by the present petitioners are not the subject matter of theabove referred writ petition. It is not the case of the respondents that entireSection 6 declaration is suspended. Order passed in WPMP No.42058 of 1998in WP No.34172 of 1998 clearly shows that the interim relief of dispossessionwas confined only to the petitioners therein. It can be said without anycontroversy that the lands claimed by the petitioners herein are not the subjectmatter in W.P.No.34172 of 1998. At this juncture, I deem it appropriate to referSection 11-A of the Act. Section 11-A of the Act reads:

“S.11-A.Period within which an award shall be made:-- The Collectorshall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from thepublication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, theentire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse.

Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published beforethe commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, theaward shall be made within a period of two years from suchcommencement.

Explanation:- In computing the period of two years referred to in this section,the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance ofthe said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.”

from the date of publication of the declaration. Failure to adhere to this timeframe is fatal to the acquisition proceedings. The stay of dispossessionsecured by the petitioners in W.P.No.34172 of 1998 is of no help to therespondents to contend that award could not be passed in respect of the landsclaimed by the petitioners. When no award was passed within the period of twoyears stipulated under Section 11-A of the Act, the consequence of which is,the entire proceedings under the Act in respect of the lands claimed by thepetitioners are lapsed.

12. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel appearing forrespondents 1 and 2 that possession has been taken by invoking the urgencyclause and thus the provisions of Sec.11-A cannot be made applicable to thecircumstances of the case. Sec.6 declaration came to be published in theAndhra Pradesh Gazettee on 6-11-1998. The petitioners filed this writ petitionon 17-6-2005 and moved WPMP.No.16486 of 2005 seeking interim direction tothe respondents not to dispossess them from the lands in question. This courtpassed the following interim order on 17-6-2005:

“ At the request of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition,the matter is adjourned by one week.the matter is adjourned by one week.

Meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to take coercive steps totake possession of the land. Further, the respondents aredirected to get instructions for payment of market value as on thedate of taking possession. Post after one week in the motion list.”take possession of the land. Further, the respondents aredirected to get instructions for payment of market value as on thedate of taking possession. Post after one week in the motion list.”

3[rd] respondent stated in the counter affidavit that possession of the lands hasbeen handed over to HMWS & SB on 18.6.2005. When there is a specificdirection to the respondents issued on 17.6.2005 not to dispossess thepetitioners from the lands in question, the contention of the respondents thatpossession of the lands have been taken on 18.6.2005 cannot be accepted.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed declaring the action of therespondents in proceeding with the award enquiry in pursuance of thenotification No.G2/5812/98, dated 28.10.1998 published in A.P. Gazette on06.11.1998 in respect of the lands claimed by the petitioners is contrary to the Date: 26.12.2005

______________________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Cs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Writ Petition No.12989 of 2005

Date: 26th December, 2005