The High Court dismissed a writ petition and appeal challenging land acquisition proceedings. The court held the petition was not maintainable because the award was final and possession had already been taken by the respondents, citing delay and laches.
Writ appeal and writ petition dismissed; no award of costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No.1458 OF 2012
&
Writ Petition No. 21849 of 2010
DATED 4.12.2012
Between: B. Ramakka and others.
… Appellants
And
Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and others.
…. Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No.1458 OF 2012 & Writ Petition No. 21849 of 2010
Common Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
Since the issue involved in the writ appeal and the writ petition being the same, they are disposed of by this common order.
Writ Appeal No. 1458 of 2012 is filed by the appellants-writ petitioners challenging the order dated 29.11.2011 passed in W.V.M.P. Nos.1842 and 4299 of 2011 and W.P.M.P. No. 27798 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 21849 of 2010 whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge declined to continue the interim order earlier granted and vacated the same.
The appellants-writ petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition before the Hon’ble Single Judge praying for a Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 21.6.2010 and Award No. 15/2010-11, dated –8-2010 and all other consequential proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Government instructions given in memo No. 1650/C1/83-I. dated 31.5.1983 and in violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. A consequential direction was sought to be issued to the respondents to set aside the said proceedings and delete the lands of the appellants in an extent
of Acs.2.50 cents, Acs. 1.49 cents, Acs.5.31 cents and Acs. 6.47 cents respectively in Survey Nos. 91/2 and an extent of Acs. 1.85 cents in Survey No.84/2 of Munagalapadu Village of Kurnool District from the said acquisition proceedings and to declare the same as null and void.
It is seen from the record that an Award was passed on 12.8.2010 and possession of the lands in question was taken over by the respondents on 16.8.2010. The appellants-writ petitioners filed the writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 21849 of 2010, quite belatedly on 31.8.2010, i.e., after steps were taken by the authorities in the matter.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the view that the writ petition and the writ appeal appear to be not maintainable since it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that an award has been passed and possession of the lands in question was taken over by the respondents.
In Swaika Properties (P) Ltd., vs. State of Rajasthan and others[1] , the Supreme Court, relied upon its own decision rendered in State of Rajasthan vs. D.R. Laxmi [(1996) 6 SCC 445)] and while following the decision rendered in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., [(1996) 11 SCC 501] , held thus:
“When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition or the ground of latches.”
Admittedly, in the instant case, the writ petition was filed by the appellants after the award has become final and after taking over possession of the lands in question. Therefore, while following the decision of the Supreme Court in Swaika Properties (P) Ltd’s case, referred to above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellants in challenging the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the writ appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ appeal and the writ petition are dismissed. No costs.
_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
______________________
Date: 4.12.2012 pnb
[1] (2008) 4 SCC 695
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings is maintainable after the award has been passed and possession taken.
Whether the petitioners are barred by delay and laches in challenging the acquisition proceedings post-possession.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan vs. D.R. LaxmiReferred¶22
(1996) 6 SCC 445 · Who else cites this
Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. vs. State of RajasthanFollowed¶22
(2008) 4 SCC 695 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Ramakka and others
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
