The court held that land acquisition proceedings did not lapse where advance possession was taken despite non-passing of the award within the statutory period. It directed the respondent to pass a general award within two months.
Writ petition dismissed; respondents directed to pass a general award under Section 11(1) within two months.
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.
*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +Writ Petition No. 4234 OF 2013
% 25.02.2013
# Syed Habibulla Shah and one another ……Petitioners Vs. $ The State of A.P, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. and others ....Respondents
<GIST: >HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Venkata Rao, ^ Counsel for the respondent No.1: AGP for Social Welfare. Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 : G.P for Land Acquisition.
?CASES REFERRED: 1. AIR 1993 S.C. 2517 2. AIR 1996 S.C. 122
3. (2011) 9 SCC 354
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No. 4234 OF 2013 Dated 25.02.2013
Between:
Syed Habibulla Shah and one another ……Petitioners
And The State of A.P, Rep. By the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. and others ....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Venkata Rao, Counsel for the respondent No.1: AGP for Social Welfare. Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 : G.P for Land Acquisition.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare that the land acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the petitioners’ lands admeasuring Ac.8-37 cents in Sy.Nos.321/1, 321/2 and 188 of Gummuluru village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, have lapsed. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore possession of Ac.5.73 cents of land.
The petitioners are the owners of the above mentioned land. These lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) issued on 20-12-2003. The purpose of acquisition was to provide house sites to landless poor persons. Having regard to the urgency felt by the respondents, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with by invoking the provisions of
Section 17 (4) of the Act. It is the admitted case of the parties that possession of the land to the extent of Ac.5.73 cents was taken leaving the balance land in the possession of the petitioners. The main plea of the petitioners in this writ petition is that with the non-passing of award within the period of two years as envisaged under Section 11-A of the Act, the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
Respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that after the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, 80% of the compensation amount was offered to the petitioners under letter dated 237-1-2004 and that after depositing the same, advance possession of Ac.5.73 cents was taken on 4-2-2004. The counter affidavit has also enumerated the various subsequent events following the issuance of notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 of the Act relating to constitution of the District Level Negotiation Committee (for short “the Committee”) and the negotiations that have taken place between the petitioners and the Committee. It is also further stated that a layout for 202 plots was prepared and that 139 beneficiaries were identified and pattas were distributed to them.
The main point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the land acquisition proceedings
lapsed by efflux of time.
Under Section 11-A of the Act, if the award is not passed within two years from the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the land acquisition proceedings would lapse. In Satendra Prasad Jain Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh[1] , the Supreme Court held that where advance possession is taken, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse even if the award is passed beyond the period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. This Judgment was followed by the Supreme Court in
Awadh Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Biha r[2] . However, in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothe r[3] , the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have differed in their view on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. The Bench has considered the Judgment in Satendra Prasad Jain (1-supra) and one of the learned Judges held that the view taken in the said case that the acquisition proceedings will not lapse where possession is taken, requires reconsideration. In view of the divergent views among the learned Judges on the Bench, the issue has been referred to a Larger Bench. However, the fact remains that the Judgment in Satendra Prasad Jain (1supra) is still holding the field and therefore the plea of the
petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed as the award was not passed within the period prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act cannot be accepted.
As regards the passing of the award, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, even if his clients have not agreed on the quantum of compensation during negotiations, nothing prevented respondent No.3 from passing a general award. Respondent No.3 is therefore directed to pass an award under Section 11(1) of the Act after giving notice to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.5284/2013 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date: 25th February, 2013.
L.R. copies AM/SRP
[1] AIR 1993 S.C. 2517 [2] AIR 1996 S.C. 122 [3] (2011) 9 SCC 354
2 issues framed by the court
Whether land acquisition proceedings lapsed by efflux of time due to non-passing of award within two years.
Whether the State machinery can pass a general award if the parties have not agreed on the quantum of compensation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Prasad Jain Vs. State of Uttar PradeshFollowed¶23
AIR 1993 S.C. 2517 · Who else cites this
Awadh Bihari Yadav Vs. State of BiharFollowed¶23
AIR 1996 S.C. 122 · Who else cites this
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar PradeshDistinguished¶23
(2011) 9 SCC 354 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Syed Habibulla Shah and others
The State of A.P., Rep. by Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
