Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Paturu Yerragangaiah Gari Avul Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETTION NO.32565 OF 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
"To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No. 3 in not referring the applications made by the petitioners on 05.04.2008 as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 belonging to the petitioners in respect of Award No../2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 of Bandarupalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District as arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India."
The petitioners were the owners of different extents of land and structures thereon in Bandarupalli Village, Vontimitta Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, which were submerged under the backwaters of Somasila Project. The respondent authorities inspected the land on 07.11.2007 and thereafter, Draft Notification and Declaration proposals were submitted to the Special Collector, Kadapa on 01.11.2007 and 10.12.2007 respectively. After following due procedure under Land Acquisition Act, Award dated 18.03.2008 was passed by the Special Deputy Collector, (L.A), G.N.S.S., Unit-II, Kadapa. But, the petitioners did not agree with the quantum of compensation and submitted applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the applications with the Advocate covering letter dated 05.04.2008 which was endorsed by the respondent office receiving date dated 07.04.2008. In W.P.No.13315 of 2007 dated 10.08.2010, the Court directed the respondent authorities therein to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation as provided under MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 2 Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. As the respondents did not take any action as per the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
Respondent No.3 - Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi Project, Unit-II, Kadapa, filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, while admitting passing of Award Nos./2007-08 dated 18.03.2008, contended the subject lands of the petitioners got surveyed in Bandarupalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal for the purpose of construction of Somasila Project. Afterwards, Draft Notification and Declaration Proposals were submitted to the Special Collector (L.A), G.N.S.S., Kadapa by the then SDC, GNSS Unit II, Kadapa. The Special Collector (L.A), G.N.S.S., Kadapa approved the Draft Notification for an extent of 32.56 Acres of patta lands in respect of the survey Nos. 384, 344, 343 etc vide Gazette No. 366 dated 01- 11-2007 and published in news papers viz Vartha and Sayamkalam (telugu dailies). The draft declaration was also approved for an extent of 30.92 Acres (1.64 Acres not covered) of patta lands for the same survey numbers vide Gazette No. 6 Dated 14-12-2007 and published in Sayamkalam paper on 20-12-2007 and in Vartha on 21-12-2007, as per the AP Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The then SDC, GNSS, Unit 2, Kadapa submitted proposals to the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa vide Report No.H/200/2007 with the statement along with the sales statistics and the recommended market value is fixed at Rs.70,000-00 per acre. The Special Collector (L.A), GNSS, Kadapa approved the proposals on 30.1.2008. The District Collector and Chairman, MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 3 District Empowered Committee, issued the Proceedings vide Gazette No. 1/1194 / 2007 dated 18.1.2008, for a consent value of 5, 000 - 00 per acre for dry lands and Rs. 1,25,000-00 per acre for ID lands under Somasila Project land acquisition for Kadapa District. Accordingly, the then SDC & LAO, Kadapa passed the consent award in the 1st spell for an extent 30.92 Acres of patta land in Bandarupalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal, YSR District vide Award No. nil /2007-2008 dated 18.3.2008 for Rs.66,61,815-0 including tree values @ Rs.1,25,000.00 per acre for the lands. The amount of compensation was also paid to the awardees. Once consent award is passed, petitioners are not entitled for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
While so, the petitioners submitted 33 representations dated 5.4.2008, received in the office of the respondents on 07.4.2008 along with the covering letter of an advocate, Sri A.B.Sudarsan Reddy of Rajampet, YSR District. He stated that the petitioners submit those applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for their properties acquired by the Government for foreshore submersion of Somasila Project vide award dated 18.3.2008, and requested to refer the 33 applications to civil court for fixation of higher compensation for an amount of Rs.10,00,000-00 per acre, as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The then Special Collector, LA, GNSS, Kadapa informed vide Lr. No. A1/11 /2007 dated 8.8.2008 to this office that the State Level Negotiation Committee approved the rates at the rate of Rs.2,00,000-00 for ID lands and Rs.1,50,000-00 for dry lands under Somasila Project Land Acquisition lands.
MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 4 Again, the then SDC & LAO, Kadapa passed the consent award in 2nd spell for an extent of 30.92 Acres of patta land in Bandarupalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal, YSR District vide Award No. nil /2007-2008 dated 08.8.2008 for Rs.26,61,000/- by adopting the SLNC approved rates. The difference amount of compensation (SLNC Rate Rs.2,00,000-00 - DLNC Rate Rs.1,25,000-00 = 75,000-00)was also paid to the awardees. Once consent award is passed, petitioners are not entitled for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The then Land Acquisition Officer passed the consent award for Rs. 2,00,000-00 per acre fixed by the State Level Negotiations Committee in two spells and paid the award amount to the petitioners, though the recommended market value is Rs.70,000-00 per acre. Therefore, the writ petitioners received the compensation as recommended by the State Level Negotiations Committee under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and references under Section 18 of the Act shall not be made and they are not entitled to make the references under Section 18 of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of AP, as per Para 8 of the APLA (SLNC) Rules, 1988. However, the consent letters executed by the Petitioners are not readily forthcoming in the connected file due to efflux of time in both awards of 2 spells. It is submitted that the writ petitioners in the present plaint affidavit dated 10.9.2018 of WP No. 32565 of 2018 contended that the above 2nd award passed by the SDC (LA) vide No. 2007-08 dated 13.8.2008 is not a consent award, that they are not agreed with the quantum of compensation and that they received the compensation under protest and requested to MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 5 revise the compensation from Rs.2,00,000-00 to 3, 000 - 00 as per the prevailing market rates. As their consent award papers are not available in the connected case file, credence shall have to be given to the subject Proceedings of the then SDC & LA vide No. Nil 2007- 2008, dated 13.8.2008, where the term 'Consent Award' is mentioned. Also, the body of the Proceedings of the District Collector & Chairman, District Empowered Committee, Kadapa vide No. A1/1194/2007 Dated 18.1.2008 contains the term 'Consent Value'. However, on the contrary, the plaint affidavit of the subject writ petition contains a version that the petitioners have accepted the revised amount of Rs.2,00,000 per Acre under protest in SLNC as their letter dated 7.4.2008 for Rs. 10,00,000-00 per Acre was not considered. As per the A.P. Land Acquisition (State Level Negotiation Committee) Rules 1998, which deal with functions of the State Level Negotiation Committee - para 8, once the negotiated settlement is arrived at by the state committee, the consent award shall be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 31(2) of the Act and reference under Section 18 shall not be made in a Court of Law. The then SDC & LAO, Kadapa passed the consent award for an extent of 30.92 Acres of patta land in Bandarupalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal, YSR District vide Award No. nil /2007-2008 dated 18.3.2008 for the above rates. The compensation was also paid to the awardees under proper acquittance. Ones consent award is passed, petitioners are not entitled for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Later, the petitioners submitted representations on 7.4.2008 for enhancement of compensation amount to Rs.10,00,000-00 per MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 6 Acre. The District Collector & Chairman, The District Level Negotiations Committee, referred the matter to the Govt. on the ground of competency. In consideration, the State Level Negotiation Committee approved the rates per acre at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- for ID lands and Rs.1,50,000-00 for dry lands for Bandarupalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal under Somasila Project Land Acquisition. The then Special Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer, Kadapa passed the consent award for an extent of 30.92 Acres of patta land in Bandarupalli Village of Vontimitta Mandal, YSR District vide Award No. nil /2007 dated 08.8.2008 for the above rates. The difference (SLNC Rate Rs.2,00,000/- - DLNC Rate Rs.1,25,000.00 = Rs. 75,000/- amount of compensation was also paid to the awardees, under proper acquaintance as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award passed itself is of consent award, the writ petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition after this prolonged passage of time i.e. 10 completed years. The compensation amounts of Rs.1,25,000-00 and Rs. 2,00,000-00 are consent awards, issued in two spells, yet, the petitioners again filed the instant WP for enhancement of compensation amount worth Rs.10,00,000-00, which is not supposed by law and does not warrant any consideration. As such, the contention of the advocate that the petitioners have received the compensation under protest in not valid. There is no truth in contending that the officials failed to perform their duties properly. The then SDC, GNSS Unit II, Kadapa followed the stipulated procedure rightly with no lapse on his part.
MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 7 It is further contended that, there is all over transparency in passing of award strictly in terms of Land Acquisition Act with the consent of the awardees. No objections were raised on this issue during these 14 years as these are consent awards. Now this writ petition is filed with malicious intention and misleading the Court and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.37300 of 2012 dated 08.002.2017, where, the learned single Judge directed the respondents to pay compensation based on SSR rates of 2005-2006 and to pay differential amount of ex- gratia at SSR Rates prevailing in the year 2005-06 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of possession taken over in the year 2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is also contended that, when a Coordinate Bench has taken a decision on the similar issue relating to same Award, the other Coordinate Bench is bound to follow the judgment and therefore, a direction is sought in terms of the order in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that, delay is not a ground in Land Acquisition matters and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C1. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, he 1 2013 (2) ALD 7 (SC) MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 8 requested to issue similar direction as issued in W.P.No.37300 of 2012 dated 08.002.2017.
Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition raised a specific contention that, when the Awards are passed obtaining consent i.e. consent Awards, the petitioners are not entitled to claim enhancement of compensation while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar2. On the strength of the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that, since the Awards are consent Awards, the petitioners are not entitled to maintain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and make a request to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
"Whether Award Nos. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 passed by the third respondent is Consent Award? If so, whether the petitioners are entitled to question the adequacy of compensation on any of the grounds and whether a direction as claimed by the petitioners be issued by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?"
P O I N T:
The petitioners did not dispute Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 passed by the third respondent, but the petitioners questioned only the quantum of compensation. The third 2 2005 Law Suit (SC) 570 MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 9 respondent did not deny passing of Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act; but contended that the Award is consent Award as agreed by the petitioners and other land losers. At the same time, Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 is consent award. If so, what are the rights of the claimants/petitioners herein to claim enhancement, is to be examined.
In view of the specific contention raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, it is necessary to advert to the contents of Award to find out whether the Award is Consent Award or not.
A bare look at the content of Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008, while awarding compensation to each of the owner of both land or land loser and structures, a specific mention is made about Consent Award and it is extracted hereunder:
"The Executive Engineer, Rajampet has not submitted the structures value which are existing in Survey No.378 extent 5.17 acres and 382/1 extent 5.88 acres respectively. On receipt of the structures valuation report from the Executive Engineer, Somasila, Nellore District permission for structures valuation will be submitted to the Special Collector (L.A), G.N.S.S. Kadapa for approval. Hence, consent award is not proposed for entire extent of 30.92 acres.
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the provision which enables the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an Award.
According to Section 11(2), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 10 such agreement. Thus, Sub-section (2) of Section 11 permits passing of Consent Award based on the agreement. Here, the land owners allegedly executed agreement on Rs.10/- stamp paper in Form IV. Copies of affidavits are filed along with counter affidavit.
Therefore, Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 is only "Consent Award".
One of the contentions raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is that, the compensation was awarded in terms of the agreement of Award. „Consent Award - Title and Apportionment‟ in Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 is placed on record in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent to establish that it is a consent award. For better appreciation of the case, the consent award - title and apportionment is as follows:
"The Awardees individually in Form-IV declared that they will not claim for payment of higher compensation under Section 18 and 28(2) in any Court of law or in any other forum and shall abide by consent award by the LAO under Section 11(2) read with Section 31(2) of the LA Act. Apart from the package deal they agree to abide by other terms and conditions as per the agreement deed entered into the Awardees with LAO in the presence of the Negotiation Committee."
In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners in the Consent Awards that they will not claim for payment of higher compensation in any Court of law or in any other Forum and shall abide by the consent award made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11(2) read with second proviso under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners/land holders are disentitled to claim compensation at enhanced rate. Accordingly, I MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 11 hold that, Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 is Consent Award.
When the Award is consent award, the rights of the parties are determined by the terms of awards and agreement itself. As per the terms of Award, the petitioners agreed not to claim enhancement of compensation before any court of law or any other Forum and shall abide by the consent Award, thereby, the Award is Consent Award, in view of execution of Agreement in Form-IV.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a similar issue came up before High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.NO.37300 of 2012. In the facts of the above judgment, the structures of the petitioners therein were acquired by the respondents due to submergence under Somasila Project by paying ex-gratia based on SSR rates of 2001 instead of SSR rates payable for 2005 - 2006.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners in the above writ petition filed W.P.No.120 of 2007 seeking directions to the respondents to pay the differential amount of ex-gratia as per SSR rates of 2005-2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 27.8.2009 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners. The 2nd respondent after taking considerable time passed orders on 14.2.2012 by issuing LOC for differential amount of ex-gratia as per SSR rates of 2005-06. When the cheques were not issued to the petitioners within the time fixed by the Accounts Officer, the petitioners filed W.P.No.6085 of 2012. The Court passed interim orders to issue cheques on or before 31.3.2012. When the said interim order was not implemented, the petitioners MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 12 filed contempt case. The Court disposed of both the cases viz., writ petition and contempt case directing the respondents herein to pass fresh orders as to the right of the petitioners ex gratia to be paid out on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates, that prevail on the date on which the possession premises is taken over. W.P.No.37300 of 2012 was disposed of on 08.002.2017, directing the respondents to pay compensation based on SSR rates of 2005- 2006 and to pay differential amount of ex-gratia at SSR Rates prevailing in the year 2005-06 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of possession taken over in the year 2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
No doubt, the learned single Judge held in favour of the petitioner therein. But, the question as to maintainability of claim for payment of compensation at enhanced rate or maintainability of the writ petition was not raised in the said writ petition and the order was passed without touching the right of the claimant to claim enhanced rate of compensation on any ground. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment to limited extent is binding. But, so far as the right of the claimant to claim compensation based on Standard Schedule Rates (S.S.R) of 2005- 06 is to be decided by this Court, in view of the specific contention urged before this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, contends that the claimants have no right to claim compensation at enhanced rates when Consent Award is passed, the petitioners MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 13 are not entitled to claim any relief based on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra) In State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra), the Apex Court relied on the judgments of State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai3 and Ishwarlal Premchand Shah v. State of Gujarat4.
In State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai (referred supra), the Court held that, the right and entitlement to seek reference would, therefore, arise when amount of compensation was received under protest in writing which would manifest the intention of the owner of non-acceptance of the award. Section 11(2) opens with a non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1)" and provides that "if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. By virtue of sub-section (4), "notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act". The award made under Section 11(2) in terms of the agreement is, therefore, an award with consent obviating the necessity of reference under Section 18.
3 (1995) 5 SCC 746 4 (1996) 4 SCC 174 MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 14 In Ishwarlal Premchand Shah v. State of Gujarat (referred supra), the Court reiterated the same principle and held as follows:
"It is true that on determination of compensation under sub-section (1) for the land acquired, Section 23(2) enjoins to award, in addition to the market value, 30% solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Equally, Parliament having taken notice of the inordinate delay in making the award by the Land Acquisition Officer from the date of notification published under Section 4(1) till passing the award under Section 11, to offset the price pegged during the interregnum, Section 23(1-A) was introduced to award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value, in addition to the market value of the land, for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of Section 4(1) notification to the date of award of the Collector or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Under Section 28, interest was directed to be paid on the excess compensation at the rate specified therein from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of deposit into court of such excess compensation. These three components are in addition to the compensation determined under sub-section (1) of Section 23. They intended to operate in different perspectives. One for compulsory acquisition, the other for the delay on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in making the award and the third one for deprivation of the enjoyment of the land from the date of taking possession till determination of the compensation. The three components are in addition to the determination of market value under sub-section (1) of Section 23. They are not integral to determination of compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 23 but in addition to, for the circumstances enumerated hereinbefore. In a private sale between a willing vendor and a willing vendee, parties would arrive at consensus to pay and receive consolidated consideration which would form the market value of the land conveyed to the vendee. For public purpose, compulsory acquisition under the Act gives absolute title under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Determination of the compensation would be done under Section 23(1) on the basis of market value prevailing as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). It would, therefore, be open to the parties to enter into a contract under Section 11(2), without the necessity to determine compensation under Section 23(1) and would receive market value at the rates incorporated in the contract signed under Section 11(2) in which event the award need not be in Form 14"
MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 15 In the facts of the judgment in Assam Railways & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. The Collector of Lakhimpur and Another5, placed reliance is not applicable to the fact of the present case. Therein negotiations had taken place between the parties whereupon the Railway Administration prepared to pay Rs.2500/- per bigha towards the sale price of the land but the transaction was not completed, having regard to the fact that under the State Railway Rules, land from private parties could be acquired only by taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, in the land acquisition proceedings, an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector allowing compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per bigha. It is in that situation, the negotiation between the parties was highlighted stating that although the same did not fructify into a binding contract, there was at least a "gentleman's agreement" regarding the price which indicated what a willing purchaser was ready to pay for the land. In the factual backdrop of that case the Apex Court observed as follows:
"Assuming this was an agreement which bound the parties, the Collector had still the jurisdiction to determine the market value of the land..."
In view of the principle laid down in the above judgments, when an Award is passed by consent, a right of a landholder to obtain an order of reference would arise only when he has not accepted the award. Once such award is accepted, no legal right in him survives for claiming a reference to the Civil Court. An agreement between the parties as regard the value of the hands 5 (1976) 3 SCC 24 MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 16 acquired by the State is binding on the parties. So long as such agreement and consequently the consent awards are not set-aside in an appropriate proceeding by a Court of law having jurisdiction the petitioners have no right to claim compensation more than the amount awarded for the structures.
Even otherwise, the claim of these petitioners in the writ petitions is to award compensation adopting Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06, as the awards were passed based on Standard Schedule Rates 2002-03. Therefore, in a way, it is a claim for enhancement of compensation which would fall within Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Instead of raising a protest on the amount awarded as compensation covered by Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008, the petitioners adopted a different procedure circumventing the law and such recourse is impermissible, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra). Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation for structures on enhanced rate, on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-06 by applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra). Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
On consideration of the facts and circumstances, the respondents could establish that Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 is consent award and that the compensation was MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 17 assessed based on Standard Schedule Rates 2002-03, for enhancement of 25% over it. Since the petitioners herein/land owners agreed to receive the same, while agreeing not to make any claim either in any Court of law or before any authority, such agreement is binding on these petitioners, thereby, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation on the basis of Standard Schedule Rates of 2005-2006. Consequently, it is difficult to issue a direction as claimed by the petitioners in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that these petitioners failed to establish that, Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 is passed under Section 11(1) but not under Section 11(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and did not deny execution of agreement in Form-IV prescribed under the Rules. The petitioners not even denied the consent Award No. /2007-08 dated 18.03.2008 passed by the third respondent, which is filed along with the writ petition; thereby, no merit lies in the contentions of these petitioners.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed, but however without costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:09.02.2022 SP