WP/28188/2010 of Guntaka Sesh Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 29 December 2011

ORDER:

The petitioners herein claim to be the residents of NunnaVillage, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, whose lands wereacquired under the Notification dated 9.2.2009 published underSection 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Act) forthe purpose of formation of Bypass road to Nunna village fromVijayawada – Nuzvid Road. This writ petition is filed aggrievedby the action of the respondents 4 & 5 in not passing the award fixingcompensation for the lands acquired.

It is alleged that the respondents 4 and 5 have beendeliberately delaying the award enquiry so that the acquisitionproceedings would lapse under Section 11-A of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners sought a Mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 to pass an award and pay compensation to them. The petitionersalso sought a declaration that the 5[th] respondent’s letter dated12.10.2010 calling for remarks of the 3[rd] respondent (requisitioningdepartment) regarding placing the matter before the State LevelNegotiation Committee for finalisation of the compensation payable is arbitrary and illegal since the said procedure adopted by the 5[th]respondent was contrary to the provisions of A.P. Land Acquisition(State Level Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1998.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

The material available on record shows that the respondents 9to 17 herein had earlier filed W.P.No.2153 of 2010 challenging thenotification dated 9.2.2009. The petitioners herein who gave theirconsent for the acquisition got themselves impleaded to W.P.No.2153of 2010 and contested the same. After hearing both the parties, thesaid writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.09.2010. Challenging the said order dated 21.09.2010 in W.P.No.2153 of2010, the respondents 9 to 17 herein filed Writ Appeal No.941 of2010. By order dated 26.11.2010, the Division Bench directed thatstatus quo existing as on that date should be maintained. Subsequently, by order dated 29.04.2011 the said order of Status quowas vacated subject to the condition that the acquisition proceedingsshould abide by final decision of Writ Appeal No.941 of 2010. Therespondents 9 to 17 herein carried the matter to the Supreme Courtand while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petitions, the SupremeCourt by order dated 25.07.2011 directed that the parties shouldmaintain status quo obtaining as on that date. Subsequently the petitioners herein filed I.A.Nos.7-9 of 2011 before the Supreme Courtseeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the Awardunder Section 11 of the Act before the expiry of the statutory period oftwo years. The said applications were disposed of by the SupremeCourt by order dated 9.9.2011 observing as under:

“In this context, it is sufficient to observe that thisCourt has not granted any stay on the passing of awardwhich the officer concerned is required to pass inaccordance with the provisions of the Act.”

It is also relevant to note that in the counter-affidavit filed by theLand Acquisition Officer in the main writ petition the allegation that the Land Acquisition Officer was deliberately delaying the awardproceedings has been categorically denied and it is stated that theaward would be passed following due process of law within time.

As could be seen, the main writ petition is filed aggrieved by theprocedure adopted by the respondents 4 and 5 in conducting theaward enquiry and apprehending that the procedure being adoptedmay result in nullifying the entire acquisition proceedings.

The 4[th] respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated16.11.2011 stating that during the pendency of this writ petition, aproposal was made by the respondent No.3 stating that if part of anewly proposed bypass road, which will intersect Vijayawada –Nuzvid road is utilized, certain portion of the alignment of R & BBypass road can be dropped leading to reduction in both the area tobe acquired and road to be formed. As per the said proposal, theacquisition would be reduced to an extent of Ac.13-95 cents and itwould be for the benefit of the land owners as well as the State. Therefore, the 4[th] respondent requested the 1[st] respondent to considerthe proposals for reducing the land sought to be acquired and that adecision is yet to be taken by the Government.

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 9.12.2011, it wasbrought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleaderfor Land Acquisition that after considering the proposal for the revisedalignment, it was decided by the 1[st] respondent to complete the landacquisition process and pass awards as per the original alignment andthat Memo No.9478/R/VI(2)/2011-6, dated 2.12.2011 was issued bythe respondent No.1 to that effect. The relevant portion from the saidMemo may be extracted hereunder:

The Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) State Roads in his letter 6[th] cited has informed that NHAI has not indicated any timeframe for grounding the NHAI Vijayawada Bypass. They havealso not indicated who would bear the cost of formation ofservice road being proposed for the portion of bypass whichwill be utilized for diversion of the state Highway traffic. Inaddition, ENC has also informed that if Vijayawada bypass is toframe for grounding the NHAI Vijayawada Bypass. They havealso not indicated who would bear the cost of formation ofservice road being proposed for the portion of bypass whichwill be utilized for diversion of the state Highway traffic. Inaddition, ENC has also informed that if Vijayawada bypass is to be utilized that present traffic at Nunna Market cannot beavoided as the same is between proposed Nunna bypassstarting point and proposed NHAI Bypass.

In view of the above and keeping in view the uncertaintyregarding grounding of NH Vijayawada bypass and costimplications of the service roads suggested by the CGM, NHAIand also that future NHAI concessionaire of VijayawadaBypass may object to part of their road being utilized fordiverting State Highway traffic without toll and since LandAcquisition proceedings will lapse in respect of all surveynumbers involved in his work during February, 2012 and thatthere are no legal impediments in passing the L.A. awards, theCollector, Krishna District is requested to complete Landacquisition process and pass awards as per the originalalignment.

He is also requested to furnish the action taken report inthe matter.

Having regard to the above decision taken by the 1[st]respondent, there cannot be any impediment for passing the awardand completing the land acquisition proceedings. As could be seenfrom the counter-affidavit dated 23.11.2011 filed by the 4[th] respondent,the statutory period prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act forpassing the award would expire on 17.02.2012.

As held in JEET SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA[[1]]the purpose of Section 11-A is to see that the award is made at an early date so thatthe claimants whose lands have been acquired would getcompensation as soon as possible. In JEET SINGH’S case (1 supra) it was further held as under:

By acquiring the land and by not making the award,the government would be acting against the interest of thepersons whose lands had been acquired. If the governmentacquires the land and does not give the amount ofcompensation to the land owners at an early date, it wouldadversely affect the land owners because they would bewithout their land and, therefore, they would be losing theirsource of income and at the same time, they would also notget the compensation. So as to make sure that such asituation does not arise, Section 11A had been introduced.Thus, the purpose behind introduction of the said Section was to see that the award is made at least within two years so thatthe compensation is paid to the persons whose lands areacquired at an early date.

It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court by order dated9.9.2011 made it clear that no stay has been granted on the passing ofaward which the officer concerned is required to pass in accordancewith the provisions of the Act.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents 4and 5 are bound to pass the award in accordance with the provisionsof the Act within the time prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction tothe respondents 4 and 5 to take the necessary further steps followingdue process of law in terms of the Memo dated 2.12.2011 issued bythe 1[st] respondent. No costs.

_______________

G. ROHINI, J.

Dt. 29.12.2011 gbs

[1](2011) 10 SCALE 516