Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Writ Petition Is Filed Under ... vs State Of Himachal Pradesh1". On The on 6 May, 2022
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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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) 1 (2018) 16 SCC 270 MSM,J wp_22283_2018 7 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 8 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 9
(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 10 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 11 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 12 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 2 (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases 270 MSM,J wp_22283_2018 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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