This Writ Petition Is Filed Under ... vs State Of Himachal Pradesh1". On ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2399 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    WRIT PETITION No.22283 of 2018

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

"issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the authorities in including the lands of the petitioners in the Land pooling scheme without their willingness, initiating acquisition of the petitioners lands and proceeding to pass awards in violation of provisions of Act 30 of 2013 as illegal, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the 11 (1) notification vide Rc.No.5798/2015-G1 dt.10.01.2017, proceedings dt.21.04.2017 and declaration dt.30.06.2017 with respect to the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.112/1B to an extent of 360 sq.yds and 240 sq.yds respectively in Pitchikalpalem village, while directing the authorities to remove the subject lands from the Final Land pooling scheme vide Rc.No.1/2016/DP dt.19.09.2016"

The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners

and possessors of house site in Sy.No.112/1B in an extent of 360

Sq.yds and 240 Sq.yds respectively. The petitioners entered into

agreement of sale in December, 2014 much before enactment of

Capital Region Development Authority Act and the said agreements

were registered in January, 2015 as the petitioners had to pool the

money from various sources, including loans from the known

persons and relatives. The said plots are part of Pitchukulapalem, a

small habitation of Dondapadu village.

The State Government declared its intention to construct a

world class State capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year

2014. Around 29 villages in Thullur and Mangalagiri mandals

covering an area of around 50,000 acres are notified as capital city

area vide G.O.Ms.254 dated 31.12.2014. House sites of petitioners

are also made part of Capital city area. The Capital Region

Development Authority constituted vide CRDA Act, 2014 announced MSM,J wp_22283_2018

Land Pooling scheme to pool the land from the willing land owners in

the said 50,000 acres area. The authorities declared that existing

village settlements and adjoining non-agriculture land which form

part of extended settlements will be exempted from pooling and

stated to be preserved and developed within the proposed new

capital city. As the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.112/1B to an

extent of 360 sq.yds, and 240 cents forms part of village settlement

and are registered in sq.yds long back. The petitioners thought that

their land is exempted from Land pooling and never gave consent for

the land pooling. No consent form under 9.3 was given. Thus, the

very inclusion of land of the petitioners in the land pooling is illegal

and arbitrary.

The petitioners further contended that the State authorities

arbitrarily included their land in land acquisition notification under

Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for

short "the Act No.30 of 2013") vide Rc.No.5798/2015-G1 dated

20.01.2017 on the ground that the land was included in the Land

Pooling scheme. There is no absolute necessity and no specific public

purpose that ought to be served by acquiring the land of the

petitioners. As the inclusion of land of the petitioners in Land Pooling

Scheme itself is illegal, acquiring the land on that ground will not

stand to legal scrutiny. The petitioners came to know that the said

notification is invalid as it was issued without revision and updation

of market value. The petitioners submitted their objections earlier

and requested the authorities to exempt their land from acquisition.

But, the authorities did not consider their objections and rejected

arbitrarily without any valid basis. No valid hearing was conducted.

MSM,J wp_22283_2018

The rejection orders were issued by District Collector vide

Rc.No.5798/2015 - G1 dated 21.04.2017. The said authority did not

hear the petitioners while issuing the proceedings and that their

objections were not considered.

Based on the above impugned proceedings, a declaration

under Section 19(1) of the Act No.30 of 2013 dated 30.06.2017 was

issued in which house site of the petitioners is also included.

Pursuant to the said declaration, award enquiry notice under Section

21 of the Act No.30 of 2013 was issued vide

Rc.No.01/2016/Dondapadu dated 05.07.2017, proposing to conduct

award enquiry on 08.08.2017. The petitioners attended on that day

and represented to the authorities not to proceed further as their

land is unjustly included in Land Pooling Scheme and ought not to

have made part of acquisition proceedings. The authorities assured

the petitioners that they would take this matter to the notice of

higher authorities and do justice to the petitioners. Believing them

and the assurances made by local public representatives, the

petitioners did not approach this Court earlier. But now, the

authorities are proceeding to pass awards. The said action of the

authorities in inclusion of the land of the petitioner in Land Pooling

scheme and resorting to acquisition of the said land in violation of

APCRDA Act, 2014 and Act No.30 of 2013 is arbitrary and violative of

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and right to

property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, requested

to grant relief as claimed in the writ petition.

This Court granted interim direction on 03.07.2018.

Respondent No.6 filed counter along with vacate stay petition

while admitting initiation of proceedings under Land Pooling Scheme MSM,J wp_22283_2018

to pool the land for construction of capital city by following due

procedure. Finally, it was not concluded as the petitioner declined to

enter into General Power of Attorney-cum-Development Agreement in

Form 9.14.

As the Government requires the land covered by notification

under Section 11 (1) of the Act No.30 of 2013 for construction of

Capital City Development Project and on the requisition made by the

Commissioner, APCRDA, issued the Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

study notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act No.30 of 2013. A

grama sabha was held on 01.04.2016, Social Impact Assessment

study as required under Section 4 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013 was

conducted and Social Impact Assessment report was handed over to

Expert Committee for appraisal. The District Collector after

examining the SIA report/Expert Report/LAO Report has taken a

decision under Section 8(2) to acquire the lands. Accordingly, the

Preliminary Notification under Section 11(1) was issued vide

proceedings Re. No.5798/2015-G1, dated 10.01.2017 and the same

was published locally District Gazette/Two Daily News Papers and in

the website of the District Collector, duly inviting objections to be

filed under Section 15(2) of the Act No.30 of 2013. The petitioners

filed objections requesting to exempt the land from Land Acquisition

as they have purchased the land for purpose of constructing house

in future. The objections were heard on 25.03.2017, and a report

was submitted to the District Collector/Appropriate Government

under Section 15(2) of the Act No.30 of 2013. The District Collector

has taken a decision to acquire the land and issued proceedings

under Section 15(2) of the Act No.30 of 2013 duly rejecting the

objections. Accordingly, Declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act MSM,J wp_22283_2018

No.30 of 2013 was issued and it was published as required. The

Land Acquisition Officer issued Award Enquiry Notices under Section

21(1) and 21(4) of Act No.30 of 2013 and requested the petitioners to

attend award enquiry on 08.08.2017, file document of sale by which

they got right over the land. Again the writ petitioners refused to give

their land under Land Acquisition and requested for exemption. As

the land belongs to the writ petitioners, an Award was passed vide

Award No.2/2018, Rc.No.10/2015/Pitchukulapalem, dated

30.06.2018. Notices under Section 37(2) of the Act No.30 of 2013

informing about passing of award was also issued to the writ

petitioners vide Rc.No.10/2015, dated 09.07.2018 of the Deputy

Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Unit-12, Dondapadu. At this

juncture, the writ petitioners filed the present petition.

It is specifically contended that the writ petition is not

maintainable as the award was passed on 30.06.2018, on this

ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

It is further contended that the petitions filed for exempting

the land of the petitioners under land pooling scheme were rejected.

The Land Acquisition Officer issued enquiry notices under Section 21

(1) and 21 (4) of the Act No.30 of 2013 and requested the petitioners

to attend the award enquiry on 08.08.2017. The petitioners attended

the enquiry and filed document of sale. As the land belongs to the

petitioners is required for construction of Capital City Development

Project, an award was passed vide award No.02/2018

Rc.No.10/2015/ Pitchukulapalem dated 30.06.2018 and that there

is no violation of provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013, requested to

dismiss the writ petition.

MSM,J wp_22283_2018

Since the subject land was not pooled under Land Pooling

Scheme as the petitioners declined to sign on Form 9.14

development agreement, and the land pooling process is abandoned.

Hence, the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners,

relief claimed in the writ petition and reply submitted by the

petitioners to the counter are more or less unnecessary. Since the

land acquisition process was initiated and award was passed, the

pleadings of both parties regarding land pooling are not reiterated in

the order.

During hearing, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, mainly raised two contentions.

First contention is that, when notice under Section 15 (2) of

the Act No.30 of 2013 was issued, reasonable opportunity is to be

afforded while hearing the objections of the petitioners, but no

opportunity was afforded, much less reasonable opportunity to the

petitioners is a grave illegality and violation of Section 15 (2) of the

Act No.30 of 2013 and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex

Court in "Shiv Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh1". On the

strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, the

petitioners contended that for non-compliance of mandatory

procedure prescribed under Section 15 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013,

the award enquiry notice is liable to be set aside.

The second contention is that, when the Collector is required

to determine the market value of the land before initiation of Land

Acquisition proceedings, he shall take all necessary steps to revise

and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent

market rate in that area as per the second proviso to Section 26 (3)

(2018) 16 SCC 270 MSM,J wp_22283_2018

of the Act No.30 of 2013. The same has not been complied with by

the Collector before initiation of Land Acquisition Proceedings. On

this ground also, the impugned notification issued under Section 11

(1) of the Act No.30 of 2013 vide Rc.No.5798/2015-G1 dated

10.01.2017, proceedings dated 21.04.2017 and declaration dated

30.06.2017 with respect to the land of the petitioner in

Sy.No.112/1B to an extent of 360 sq.yards and 240 sq.yards

respectively in Pitchikalapalem village.

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would

contend that a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioners

and their objections were considered in detail by the authorities

concerned in compliance of mandatory procedure under Section 15

(2) of the Act No.30 of 2013, and that the alleged non-consideration

of objections is baseless. The alleged failure to comply with the

second proviso to Section 26 (3) of the Act No.30 of 2013 will not

vitiate the entire proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and

requested to dismiss the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this

Court to clause (c) in the proceedings of the Collector in

Rc.B/5798/2015-G1 dated 21.04.2017, where the Collector admitted

that "no objections filed on the contents of SIA, except objecting

about the market value. The market value would be fixed during the

award enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer duly taking approvals

of Joint Collector/District Collector as the case may be". Based on

the same, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that failure

to comply with the mandatory procedure vitiates the entire

proceedings.

MSM,J wp_22283_2018

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available

on record, the points that need be answered by this Court are as

follows:

(1) Whether the respondents complied with the mandatory procedure under Section 15 (2) of the Act No.30 of 2013 affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner including physical hearing? If not, whether the proceedings are vitiated?

(2) Whether the respondents failed to comply the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? If so, would non-compliance vitiate the impugned proceedings and liable to be set aside?

(3) Whether the writ petition is maintainable to quash the Award enquiry notice after passing final Award?

P O I N T No.1:

The first and foremost contention of the petitioners before this

Court is that, on receipt of notice, the petitioners filed objections to

the notice in preliminary notification. But the respondents did not

afford a reasonable opportunity to submit their objections in the oral

enquiry and therefore, the Award Enquiry notice is illegal, arbitrary

and violative of principles of natural justice.

Section 15 of Act No.30 of 2013 deals with „Hearing of

Objections‟. According to it,

(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to -

(a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired;

(b) justification offered for public purpose;

MSM,J wp_22283_2018

(c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him along with a separate report giving therein the approximate cost of land acquisition, particulars as to the number of affected families likely to be resettled, for the decision of that Government.

(3) The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections made under sub-section (2) shall be final.

The scope of objections is restricted to Section 15(1)(a)(b) & (c)

of Act No.30 of 2013 extracted hereinabove and any person whose

land is proposed to be acquired by notification under sub-section (1)

of Section 11 of Act No.30 of 2013 may file his objections as

enumerated in Section 15(1)(a)(b) & (c) and they are precluded or

debarred from raising any other objections other than enumerated

under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Act No.30 of 2013. In the

present writ petition, the petitioners submitted their objections, but

did not satisfy the date of objections in Paragraph No.6 of the

affidavit filed along with the writ petition, but alleged that the

authorities did not specify the date of objections and rejected

arbitrarily without any valid basis and no enquiry/hearing was

conducted, thereby rejection orders were issued by the District

Collector on 21.04.2017. Thus, the District Collector did not

consider the objections of these petitioners, affording reasonable MSM,J wp_22283_2018

opportunity of personal hearing. As seen from the admitted facts,

Land Acquisition Notification dated 20.01.2017 was issued under

Section 11(1) of Act No.30 of 2013, as such the petitioners are

supposed to submit their objections within sixty days from the date

of notification. Copies of objections are not placed on record by the

petitioners before this Court independently, but the proceedings of

the District Collector dated 21.04.2017 in Rc.B/5798/2015-G1 is

placed on record. The specific objections of the petitioners are as

follows:

"OBJECTIONS

Peravalli Premakumari

We belong to SC madiga caste and poor family. We have purchased the vacant house plot of 360 sq yds in Survey no. 112/1 of Pitchikalapalem SC colony in 2014 December with all our saving from agriculture and by taking loans and made part payment. Thereafter, Captial city was announced. As we could not mobilize the required money in Time, we have registered the sale deed only in January 2015. We are poor and have white ration card. Request to allow us to retain this small plot.

Dorapalli Kumari

We belong to SC madiga caste and poor family. We have purchased the vacant house plot of 360 sq.yds in Survey no. 112/1 of Pitchikalapalem SC colony in 2014 December with all our saving from agriculture and by taking loans and made part payment. Thereafter, Captial city was announced. As we could not mobilize the required money in Time, we have registered the sale deed only in January 2015. We are poor and have white ration card. Request to allow us to retain this small plot."

The objections raised by these petitioners is not with regard to

area and suitability of the land proposed to be acquired or

justification offered for public purpose or the findings of the Social

Impact Assessment Report, as enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) of

Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Act No.30 of 2013. But, their

objection is about their poverty and social backwardness. The

objections raised by the petitioners are not permitted under Sub-

MSM,J wp_22283_2018

section (1) of Section 15 of Act No.30 of 2013. As the objections are

beyond the permissible objections under Sub-section (1) of Section

15 of Act No.30 of 2013, those objections needs no further hearing

and no specific findings need be recorded. In fact, the main reason

for filing this writ petition is that, an opportunity of personal hearing

was not afforded to the petitioners and it is in violation of principles

of natural justice.

As discussed above, the copies of objections submitted by

these petitioners to the District Collector in response to the Land

Acquisition Notification issued under Section 11(1) of Act No.30 of

2013 is not placed on record, except extracting the objection

mentioned in the proceedings of the District Collector.

Notices dated 18.01.2016 were issued to the petitioners under

Rule 15(2)(I) in Rc.No.483/2015 and Rc.No.482/2015 calling upon

them to appear before the authorities on 25.01.2016 at 11:00 a.m to

hear their objections and those notices are placed on record. In

response to the notices, the petitioners appeared and only after

affording reasonable opportunity, recommendations were made by

the District Collector. Dissatisfied with the recommendation made

under Section 15(2) of Act No.30 of 2013, the petitioners preferred

appeals before the Director of Estates, Land Pooling vide reference

Rc.No.450/2016/Director Estates/Land Pooling 9.2 Appeals dated

09.06.2016 and the Principal Secretary (CRDA) issued notices calling

upon the petitioners to appear on 15.06.2016 at 4:00 p.m before

him. But, it is not known whether these petitioners appeared before

the authorities in pursuance of the notices of personal hearing in

appeal. Thus, it is evident that, notices dated 18.01.2016 were

issued to the petitioners in enquiry under Section 15(2) of Act No.30 MSM,J wp_22283_2018

of 2013 and also in the appeals before the Principal Secretary

(CRDA). Thus, an opportunity, muchless, reasonable opportunity

was afforded to these petitioners to put forth their objections and

personal hearing on the objections submitted by these petitioners.

Therefore, the contention that, no opportunity was afforded to these

petitioners about hearing objections under Section 15(2) of Act No.30

of 2013 is without any merit and it is baseless. The entire affidavit is

silent as to the petitioners‟ appearance before the authorities on the

date of hearing fixed in the notices issued under Section 15(2) of Act

No.30 of 2013.

While raising the contention with regard to non-compliance of

mandatory procedure under Section 15(2) of Act No.30 of 2013,

learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K.S. Murthy would draw

attention of this Court to judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shiv

Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh2. In the

judgment referred above, the Court considered the nature of enquiry

and its effect on the land acquisition proceedings. In the facts of the

above judgment, when a notice of acquisition under preliminary

notification under Section 11(1) of Act No.30 of 2013 was issued, the

land holders or the persons interested are entitled to file their

objections within the specified time under Section 15 of Act No.30 of

2013. Thereafter, the objections have to be heard by the District

Collector giving an opportunity to the landholders etc, as

contemplated under Section 15(2) of Act No.30 of 2013 and submit a

report. The Court concluded that, non-compliance of Section 15(2) of

Act No.30 of 2013 is a serious illegality and it vitiates the entire

(2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 270 MSM,J wp_22283_2018

proceedings. Thus, failure to provide opportunity of personal hearing

to the objections is a serious illegality.

There is no quarrel about the principle laid down in the above

judgment by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. But, it has no application to

the present facts of the case, since the petitioners did not raise any

objection as to the area and suitability of land proposed to be

acquired or justification offered for public purpose or the findings of

the Social Impact Assessment report, as enshrined in Sub-section (1)

of Section 15 of Act No.30 of 2013. In such case, even assuming for

a moment that, no opportunity of physical hearing was afforded, the

respondents are not required to make any enquiry as to the

objections raised by these petitioners regarding their poverty and

social backwardness, as it is beyond the scope of objections

permitted under Section 15(1) of Act No.30 of 2013.

The respondents specifically contended that, only after an

opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, the

recommendation was made by the District Collector under Section

15(2) of Act No.30 of 2013. The respondents also placed on record

the objections filed by these petitioners. The objections would not fall

within Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Act No.30 of 2013. Later,

these objections were heard after serving notice on the petitioners

and recorded a finding in the recommendation that all the objections

relate to ownership apportionment which will be taken up during

award enquiry the objections relating to requests for considering the

part of lands to be demarcated as village site/extended habitation.

Since the objections are not relating to the permissible objections

under Section 15(1), they were rejected by the District Collector only

upon affording opportunity of personal hearing. Hence, the MSM,J wp_22283_2018

contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings

are vitiated by an irregularity due to non-compliance of mandatory

procedure under Section 15(2) is without merit and the same is

hereby rejected. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the

respondents and against these petitioners.

P O I N T No.2

The second contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that, the District Collector is required to revise the

market value of the property in terms of second proviso to

Section 26(3) of Act No.30 of 2013. But, no such revision had taken

place and thereby, the proceedings are vitiated.

In support of his contention, learned counsel has drawn

attention of this Court to the recommendation made by the District

Collector under Section 15(2) of Act No.30 of 2013. In pen-ultimate

paragraph of the recommendation, finding No.(c) is relevant for the

purpose of deciding this issue and it is extracted hereunder:

(c) The objections raised on SIA is that, it is violative of Articles 13, 14, 19, 21, 31A and 300A. No objections filed on the contents of SIA except objecting about the market value. The market value would be fixed during the award enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer duly taking approvals of Joint Collector/District Collector as the case may be.

Thus, the other land owners appear to have raised objections

as to the market value. But, these two petitioners did not raise any

objection even as to the market value of the property, except raising

an objection as to their poverty and social backwardness, with a

request to exempt the land from acquisition. Taking advantage of

finding (c) in the report under Section 15(2) of Act No.30 of 2013,

learned counsel would contend that, when the Collector is obligated

to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of MSM,J wp_22283_2018

prevalent market rate in the area and failure to do so is a serious

error. For better appreciation of this contention, it is apposite to

extract the specific proviso and accordingly, it is extracted

hereunder:

"Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area"

As seen from Section 26, it is the duty of the Collector to adopt

the criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the

land i.e. the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,

1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to

sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or

the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest

village or nearest vicinity area; or consented amount of compensation

as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of

acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private

partnership projects, whichever is higher.

According to Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 26 of Act No.30

of 2013, the market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be

multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. Where the

market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cannot be

determined for the reason that

(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or

(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or

(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, MSM,J wp_22283_2018

the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:

Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area: Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice

In the present case, the contention of the petitioners is that,

the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 26 has not been

complied with, which is mandatory.

In view of the language employed in proviso to Sub-section (3)

of Section 26, before initiation of land acquisition proceedings in any

area, revising and updating the market value of the land on the basis

of the prevalent market rate in that area is mandatory. Merely

because the Collector failed to revise the market value based on

prevalent market value of the land, the entire proceedings would not

be vitiated, for the reason that, the petitioners are not going to

sustain any loss, in case anyone of the modes prescribed under Sub-

section (1) of Section 26 of Act No.30 of 2013 are adopted. Even

otherwise, in case of any dispute regarding market value arises, a

request can be made to the District Collector to make reference to

the competent authority under Section 64 of Act No.30 of 2013 to

determine the market value and following necessary procedure

prescribed under the Act. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to

these petitioners. That apart, the petitioners did not raise any MSM,J wp_22283_2018

objection with regard to non-compliance of the procedure. Therefore,

failure to comply with the third proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section

26 of Act No.30 of 2013 is not a ground to declare initiation of land

acquisition proceedings and the proceedings cannot be declared as

illegal, arbitrary and question of setting-aside the notification under

Section 11(1) vide Rc.No.5798/2015-G1 dt.10.01.2017, proceedings

dt.21.04.2017 and declaration dated 30.06.2017 with respect to the

land of these petitioners does not arise. Hence, the contention of

these petitioners is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in favour of the respondents and

against the petitioners.

P O I N T No.3:

Admittedly, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before

this Court on 28.06.2018 and obtained an interim order on

03.07.2018. By the date of grant of interim order, Award was

passed. Notice of Award enquiry was issued on 05.07.2017 and

Award was passed on 30.06.2018. Thus, by the date of passing

interim order, entire process was completed and Award was passed

fixing compensation payable to the landholders for the land

acquired. When once the Award is passed, the question of

challenging the preliminary notification issued under Section 11(1) of

Act No.30 of 2013 and declaration under Section 19(1) so also the

Award enquiry notice does not arise, as Award is already passed by

the land acquisition authority. When once the Award is passed even

before passing the interim order, it is for the petitioners to challenge

the Award and unless the Award is set-aside on any of the

irregularities, the question of setting-aside preliminary notification, MSM,J wp_22283_2018

declarations and consequential notifications does not arise.

Technically, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the Award was

already passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same is not

challenged before this Court. Hence, I am of the view that the writ

petition is not maintainable. However, it is left open to the petitioners

to challenge the Award on any of the legally permissible grounds and

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on technical grounds.

Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in favour of the respondents and

against the petitioners.

In view of my foregoing discussion and findings on Point Nos.1

to 3, I find no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the

petitioners to challenge the Award, if advised and if it is legally

permissible. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

also stand dismissed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:06.05.2022

Ksp/SP