Anumula Buchi Reddy & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Heard Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior counsel representing Sri B.Arjun Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. As the petitioners in both the writ petitions are one and the same and they are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation for acquiring the houses and structures which came under the submergence of the Mid-Manair Reservoir Project, both the writ petitions are taken up together for analogous hearing.

Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of house No. 2-20 and house No. 2-35/B and the 2nd petitioner claims to be the owner of house No. 2-35/A, totally admeasuring an extent of 860 sq.yds at Neelojipalli, H/O Kodurupaka village, Boinpalli mandal, Karimnagar District. The Executive Engineer, I&CAD of Mid-Manair Division-IV-FEC, Circle No.1, Kothapally, Karimnagar filed a requisition for acquisition of lands, situated at Neelojipalli, H/O Kodurupaka village, Boinpalli mandal, Karimnagar district. In pursuance to the requisition made by the 3rd respondent and after conducting survey by the concerned revenue officials, a draft proposal was submitted under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of 584 houses situated at Neelojipally, H.O. Kodurupaka village, Boinpalli mandal, Karimnagar district, which came into the submergence of the Mid Manair Reservoir Project. The structures of the petitioners were mentioned in the said draft notification, and after approval, the Land Acquisition Officer issued Form-III notice under Section 5A of the LA Act, 1894 for conducting survey on 01.08.2009 and called for objections / claims by 01.09.2009. After conducting inquiry, the 3rd respondent submitted draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, on 31.12.2009. The draft proposals issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the LA Act were approved and the substance of the same was published in the locality on 29.12.2008 and 05.02.2009 respectively. The 3rd respondent and surveyor inspected the land structures under the acquisition to ascertain the market value according to its utility. The lands have been categorised as :

A detailed inquiry was conducted for assessing the value of the price of the land and accordingly market value was fixed as Rs.254/- per sq.yd for the dwelling areas. Further, for about 209 structures existing on the acquired land which came under the submergence, it was necessitated to constitute a three-man committee consisting of Executive Engineer (R&B Division), Assistant Conservator (Forest), and Executive Engineer, Division-IV, F.F.C. Circle, Kothapally, Karimnagar to estimate the value of the structures. The committee also conducted social audit of valuation of estimates of the structures and submitted report dated 12.06.2013 for each and every house including petitioners' houses.

The 3rd respondent while agreeing with the estimation value of the structures in respect of 209 houses, has deferred the petitioners' three houses and paid the compensation amount. The three-man committee in its report, estimated the value of the petitioners' houses as Rs.63,43,000/-. However, the Land Acquisition Officer / 3rd respondent did not agree with the three-man committee estimates on the ground that the value of the structures were estimated abnormally and referred the matter to the Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited for re-verification of the estimated value of the three houses of the petitioners. On such reference, the Senior Engineer of Agriculture Finance Corporation furnished estimation value of the three houses fixing the value for structures for Rs.37,56,697/-. The 3rd respondent relying on the valuation fixed by the Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited, passed an award on 31.12.2013. The petitioners submit that they are very much in possession of their houses and no compensation was paid till date and in view of the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, are entitled for fair and just compensation for the lands, houses, structures acquired for the public purpose and other benefits as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 by taking the three-man estimation committee report dated 12.06.2013 on par with others. The petitioners thereafter made representations on 10.03.2015 and 13.03.2015 for payment of compensation. The 3rd respondent having accepted the three-man committee valuation report for 209 structures, denied the same and relied on the estimation proposals fixed by the Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

In the grounds urged by the petitioners, it is submitted that the 3rd respondent has not extended the benefit of valuation fixed by the three-man committee, but has extended the same to the 209 structures, which is nothing but discriminatory and violation of principles of natural justice and that the Land Acquisition Officer, though has initiated the land acquisition proceedings in 2009, has not taken the possession and not paid the compensation, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to be lapsed under the Act 1 of 1894 and if the government wants to acquire the land, it has to initiate fresh proposals for acquisition in accordance with provisions of the Act, 2013 and that the petitioners are entitled for fair and justifiable compensation for the house and structures acquired for the public purpose in accordance with Act 30 of 2013.

Respondent No.3 filed counter and would submit that the erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh intended to construct a reservoir across Manair river in between Kandikatpoor and Manwada villages and declared project affected zone while notifying 12 villages coming fully and 6 villages coming partially under submergence in Mid Manair Reservoir vide G.O.Ms.No.69 I&CAD (MAG Irrigation-11, A1 department) dated 06.04.2006. For the said purpose an extent of Ac.15998-25 gts of land was requisitioned by the Irrigation Department, out of which an extent of Ac.15157-26 guntas was already acquired, awarded, and compensation was paid. Further under submergence, 7150 structures were notified, out of which for 5648 structures, awards were passed and compensation was paid till date on priority basis (falling in seven villages).

It is further submitted that with regard to Neelojipalli village which is a fully submerged village under Mid Manair Reservoir, draft notifications under Section 4(1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued for acquiring Patta lands, structures in Patta lands and Abadi lands. It is further submitted that the agricultural lands of the village have been acquired vide consent award to an extent of Ac.3255 guntas and land compensation was paid in the year 2007-08, leaving a balance of land covered by houses / structures in the village for want of estimations from the concerned engineering department. The Executive Engineer, I&CAD Irrigation Department, Peddapalli and his technical staff prepared the detailed estimates of 584 structures/houses of this Neelojipalli / Kodurupaka village of Boinpaili Mandal and furnished the estimations to the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit-VII, Karimnagar. Estimates were also served on the individuals inviting objections from the interested parties. Certain objections over valuations were received, and in few cases, the individuals represented that their house estimates have been valuated less and requested for re-estimation and some of the villagers filed complaints that for many houses, valuations were boosted and demanded for re-estimation. In order to have clarity and transparency, it was decided to entrust the work to the Executive Engineer, DPEP, Karimnagar, who completed the detailed estimation work and forwarded the estimations to the Special Deputy Collector, LA Unit-VII, LMD Colony, Karimnagar. It is further submitted that on the detailed estimates of structures in Neelojipally village for the second time also, many complaints and several adverse news items were published in the newspapers alleging tampering, forgery, and alterations of the valuation of estimates of the structures. Further, when the officials of the concerned LAO/SDC visited the villages to verify the estimates, it was noticed that the value of the structures are abnormally boosted and in some estimates, corrections, overwriting/tampering of original types/figures of the estimates have been noticed. Similar complaints were made on estimation of structures in all the submerged villages in MMR project. In view of the above discrepancy, a meeting was held by the Government on 26.08.2009 and a decision was taken up for the social audit of the valuation of the estimate of structures which are coming under the submergence of MMR project. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.917, I&CAD (PW.LA-IV R&R) Department dated 26.11.2009 and constituted a three-man committee to verify the structure values under MMR submerged villages, so that any irregularity, if committed, must be rectified before passing the award under Section 11 of the LA Act, 1894. Accordingly, estimations were sent to the three-man committee for social audit of the valuation of estimates of the structures of the said Neelojipalli H/O Kodurupaka village of Boinpalli mandal, which came into the submergence of the said MMR project.

It is submitted that, after receipt of the estimation values from the three-man committee by the Special Deputy Collector, LA, Karimnagar, the Xerox copies of the three-man committee estimates were served on the individuals inviting objections, if any, from the interested parties. On service of the copies of the estimates prepared by the three-man committee, one J.V. Muralidhar Rao, President of Kodurupaka village (Boinpalli mandal), filed a petition stating that the structures/houses which are covered in the present petition bearing house No.2-20, No.2-35/A and No.2-35/B estimate values have been abnormally increased while valuating the structures and requested not to pay the estimated value. Further, on verification of the detailed estimates booklet for house No.2-20, it was noticed that the estimates of the structures were tampered, and it was also noticed that the valuation of estimates of structures were altered. Further, the three-man committee conducted social audit and corrected the estimation, but have not verified the structures physically. Further, the three-man committee report is also not clear, and there are corrections, alterations. It is further submitted that, there are four types of values in the report of the three-man committee, and it is not clear as to which value should be adopted for payment of compensation. Further, based on the report received from the three-man committee, the SDC/LAO are paying the compensation for those structures after being satisfied with the value of the structures and leaving a balance in which the SDC/LAO and the Special Collector was not satisfied with the reports given by the three-man committee, as there is a huge difference between the amounts proposed by the three-man committee and the physical condition of the houses/structures on spot, as such, the Director of Vigilance and Enforcement has taken a suo motu case based on the complaints and adverse news items reported in the newspapers on the submerged villages of the MMR project, including Neelojipalli village. The Vigilance Department pointed out irregularities in the estimations of the value of structures and submitted an alert note No.176(1238/V&E/E1/2010), dated 30.12.2011 to the Government, Revenue Department to stop payments regarding compensation for the structures in the villages which are coming under the submergence of the Mid Manair Project. Further, on the physical verification of the structure/houses of Neelojipalli village, it was revealed that the value of 26 structures/houses, including the three structures of the petitioners, were abnormally boosted by the three-man committee and as per the Government orders, the entire responsibility goes on the shoulders of the SDC/LAO for any excess payment and high payment made in the award, as they are the competent authority to finalise the award and in view of the complaints on the three-man committee report, the Special Collector, LA, SRSP, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, by letter NO.C2/2201/2013, dated 11.11.2013, requested Government to give permission to entrust the work of valuation of estimates to M/s Agriculture Finance Corporation, owned by NABARD. It is further submitted that earlier in Sripada Yellampally Project, and in all other irrigation projects of many districts, the valuation estimates of the structures were prepared by the Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited. The Government, vide Memo No.22283/LA-IV&R&R-1/07-6 dated 07.03.2008, permitted the District Collectors to entrust the work of valuation of estimates to M/s Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited. Further, the Principal Secretary to Government, I&CAD, AP, had permitted to entrust the valuation of estimates of high values/low values in which the SDC/LAO is not satisfied with the report of three-man committee to be re-verified by third-party verification. Accordingly, re-estimation work of value of structures where the LAO/SDC is not satisfied with the reports given by the three-man committee was entrusted to Agriculture Finance Corporation in all the submerged villages of the Mid Manair Project and in the case of Neelojipalli village, re-estimation work of 26 structure/houses was entrusted to Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited for re-verification of the estimated value of the 26 structures, including the petitioners' three houses.

The respondent further submits that the Vigilance report on three-man committee after verification of estimates of the structures and after scrutinizing, the following observations were made by the Vigilance Department: (i) That the committee did not follow the guidelines stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 291 Irrigation (PW) Department dated 05.08.1982; (ii) That the committee recommended 10% extra towards Sanitation, Water supply, Electrification and other miscellaneous items without any guidelines from the Government; (iii) That the committee randomly decreased the teak wood quantity etc. It is further submitted that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, by their letter No.RVEo/KN/EW-172/2015/1, dated 01.03.2016, called for the information pertaining to the compensation of the houses in Neelojipally village of Karimnagar district. The LAO/SDC submitted records to the Vigilance Department by letter No.F/128/2016, dated 16.03.2016, and they are in the custody of the Vigilance Department.

It is further submitted that the Senior Engineer, Agriculture Finance Corporation, Hyderabad, furnished the detailed estimation values and the estimation values prepared by the three-man committee for Rs.63,43,000/- was reduced as per the estimation value prepared by the AFC (Agriculture Finance Corporation, Hyderabad) to a tune of Rs.37,56,697/- and that the estimations prepared by the Agriculture Finance Corporation, Hyderabad, was found reasonable, as such, the estimation values prepared by the Agriculture Finance Corporation, Hyderabad, were taken into consideration. It is further submitted that notices were issued under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and same were published in the Gram Panchayat inviting claims and objections from the interested persons. It is further submitted that, during the award inquiry, the petitioners have not agreed to receive the structure compensation as estimated by the Agriculture Finance Corporation and requested to adopt the valuation estimates prepared by the three-man committee. As such, the petitioners have not executed the agreement in Form-III and IV under Section 11(2) read with Section 31(2) of the LA Act for passing the consent award and requested to pass general award under Section 11(1) of the LA Act. Hence, the award was passed under Section 11(1) of the LA Act, 1894 on 31.12.2013, and a notice under Section 12(2) was issued to the petitioners on 06.01.2014 to attend the office of the Special Deputy Collector, LA, Karimnagar, to sign on the acquittance rolls within a period of seven days to credit the compensation payable to them in their bank account. It is further submitted that since the petitioners have not turned up to receive the award amount, the amount was kept in the revenue deposit and would be paid to the petitioners as and when they approach the Land Acquisition Officer.

It is further submitted that the construction of R&R colonies is under progress with all infrastructure and civic amenities, and once they are ready, they will be shifted to R&R colonies, and they are not permitted to live in the submergence areas. It is further submitted that since the possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the requisition department, the subject lands vests with the Government with all encumbrances and since the award has been passed and possession has been taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are not applicable to the petitioners' case.

It is further submitted that the petitioners' houses/structures award was passed under Section 11(1) of the LA Act on 31.12.2013 duly awarding 9% and 15% interest from the date of taking over possession, i.e., from 04.01.2012. It is further submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved with the quantum of compensation fixed by the LAO/SDC, they can approach the Civil Court by filing petition before the LAO/SDC under the Act for enhancement of compensation. The respondents submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and eventually pray to dismiss W.P. No.20711 of 2016.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned draft award file No.F/238/2012, award No.45/2013-14, dated 31.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.81.34,134/- (Rupees Eighty one lakhs thirty four thousand one hundred and thirty four only), which was passed antedated/backdated fraudulently under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also in violation of the procedures and provisions of Act 30 of 2013 with regard to the proceedings initiated for house Nos.2-20, 2-35/A, 2-35/B situated at Neeloipalli Village, Boinpalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla district. In addition to the facts stated in W.P.No.20711/2016, the petitioners would submit that preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 declaration with respect to the petitioners' houses were published in AP Gazette vide SRP 039 dated 19.12.2008 and SRP 058 dated 31.12.2009 (as per award) and the date of publication of draft notification and draft declaration under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were reckoned as 29.12.2008 and 05.02.2009 respectively. It is further submitted that the publication of Section 6 declaration in Andhra Prabha newspaper, was published on 28.12.2008, whereas in the award, it is mentioned that the declaration is published in State Gazette on 31.12.2009 and was reckoned as 05.02.2009, which are contradictory in nature and also in violation of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the possession of the lands as well as structures were taken into possession on 04.01.2012. However, no opportunity for filing objections to the notification were given, and the possession of the houses was taken only after three years of publishing the declaration. The petitioners submit that their houses were surveyed, estimated, and valued by the engineering authorities twice at the first instance, thereafter, the State Government/Irrigation & CAD Department issued G.O.Rt.No.917 dated 26.11.2009. Based on the three-man committee, the 3rd respondent/LAO passed award and compensation was awarded for three houses as per the estimates submitted by the three-man committee, and the said draft award was passed including Form-III under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the compensation amount was awarded for three houses to a tune of Rs.1,29,22,244/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Four only), dated Nil-12-2013. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent had also addressed a letter along with Form-III to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, IFFC-1, MMR Circle, Dharur camp, Jagtial, by letter dated 12.03.2014 requesting to recommend the case to the Chief Engineer (Projects), I&CAD Department, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, for issuance of LOC for an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/-. The 4th respondent in turn addressed a letter along with statement to the Superintending Engineer, IFFC, Circle-1, Dharur camp, Jagtial, by letter dated 13.03.2014, for issuance of LOC for the said amount. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer also addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer on 13.03.2014 requesting for issuance of LOC for the said amount. The said information was obtained by the petitioners from the 4th respondent by way of filing an application under RTI Act, 2005. The petitioners also refer to the various communications between the 3rd respondent and the Irrigation Department, and would submit that as per the said correspondence, the 3rd respondent has addressed a letter to the Assistant Pay & Accounts Officer, Works & Projects, Karimnagar, requesting to issue authorisation for Land Acquisition payments for an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/- pertaining to the petitioners' compensation. The petitioners further submit that though an award was passed for an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/-, the 3rd respondent again got estimated and valued the above-mentioned three houses/structures without issuing any notice to the petitioners and with the assistance of Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited, NABARD, Hyderabad, had reduced the valuation of the house estimates and passed another draft award vide File No.F/238/2012, Award No.45/2013-14 dated 31.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.81,34,134/- under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was revealed to the petitioners under the RTI Act, 2005. The petitioners further submit that the 3rd respondent has passed the second draft award so as to avoid the payment of compensation under the new Act 30 of 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014, which is more beneficial to the land oustees when compared with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the second award dated 31.12.2013 passed for an amount of Rs.81,34,134/- is antedated/backdated, passed behind the petitioners' back by playing fraud. The petitioners pray to quash or set aside the said award dated 31.12.2013 as they are entitled for payment of compensation under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013.

Respondent No.3 filed additional counter affidavit dated 02.07.2025 and would submit that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 19.12.2008 by the Special Collector, SRSP, Hyderabad vide proceedings No.D3/3584/2008-1 dated 28.12.2008 and the substance was published in the locality on 29.12.2008 and declaration by file No.D3/3584/2008-2 dated 22.12.2009 and the substance in the locality was published on 05.02.2009. The submissions made in the additional counter are similar to the submissions made in the counter filed in W.P.No.20711/2016. It is further submitted that the petitioners, after a lapse of about eleven years from the date of award, have filed the present writ petition, and thus the petitioners' case is hit by delay and laches and misrepresentation of facts. And that W.P.No.20711/2016 with similar plea in respect of the same subject property is pending.

A Reply to additional counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 03.07.2025. The petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 was silent with respect to the grounds raised by the petitioners with regard to the passing of the impugned draft award by File No.F/238/2012, Award No.45/2013-14 dated 31.12.2013, which is a draft award passed in antedated/backdated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further, as per Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Land Acquisition Officer shall make an award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration, and if no award is passed within that period, the entire land acquisition proceedings for the said land shall lapse. In the instant case, the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was recorded on 05.02.2009, and the respondent No.3 ought to have passed award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 by 04.02.2011 and that the respondents failed to pass the award by 04.02.2011 as such the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed thereafter, and without passing an award, the authorities have taken possession of the subject properties on 04.01.2012. Since the proceedings have lapsed, the respondent authorities ought to have initiated fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner further questions that when an award was passed on 31.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.81,34,134/-, the respondent No.3 has addressed a letter to the authorities of Irrigation Department on 12.03.2014 stating that the draft award has been approved by the Special Collector, LA, SRSP, SSP & JCRGLIP, Tarnaka, to an extent of 860 square yards for an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/- and requested to recommend the case to the Chief Engineer, Projects, I&CAD Department, for issuance of LOC for an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/-. It is further submitted that when respondent No.3 has passed award on 31.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.81,34,134/- for the same subject three houses, the respondent No.3 has again addressed a letter to the Irrigation Department on 12.03.2014 and 12.06.2014 seeking to provide an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/- for the payment of compensation in respect of the very same subject three houses enclosing Form-III statements. Further, before passing the award, notices under Section 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act, 1894 were issued on 16.03.2012 and were served on the concerned, but the award shows that there is no mention of date with regard to the commencement of the award inquiry and conclusion of the said inquiry was shown as Nil-Nil-2013, which is only a mere exercise on paper, which is void. The petitioners further submit that the Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited has no jurisdiction for preparation of valuation estimates of the subject houses for the reason that the subject acquisition is for construction of an irrigation project, which is a State Government project and the Central Government has no say in the said irrigation project. It is further submitted that after passing the award in respect of the subject houses, the petitioners were called to receive the compensation by notice dated 06.01.2014. For non-receipt of the compensation, the matter has been referred to the Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla under Section 30 of Act 1 of 1894 by file No.F/238/2012 dated 09.03.2018 and the award compensation of Rs.81,34,134/- was deposited in the above-mentioned court by cheque No. 211273, dated 08.03.2018. Further, the petitioner came to know that the reference made on 12.03.2018, vide C.F. LAOP No. 220/2018 was returned on 14.05.2018 with certain office objections taken by the Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla, and thereafter the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps to resubmit the same by complying with the objections before the said court. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 cannot pass a draft award/fair award without there being funds at his disposal for the disbursement of the same to the landowners. The petitioner further submits that the possession of the subject property was taken on 04.01.2012 without conducting award inquiry, without passing an award, and without payment of compensation, and that the action of the authorities in taking possession prior to the conducting of award inquiry and subsequently passing of award is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of provisions of Act 1 of 1894 and Act 30 of 2013.

An additional counter was filed by respondent No.3, reiterating the same submissions made in the counter filed earlier. The respondent No.3 further submits that no award was passed for an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/-, and there is no approval for the said award amount and while referring to the letters addressed to the irrigation authorities and on perusal of the office records, a letter filed by one J.V. Muralidhar Rao was found, filed before the Special Collector, Hyderabad, alleging that the SDC Shankar Rao had enhanced the house compensation abnormally to the houses of the petitioners and that the petitioner Anumula Buchi Reddy was a middleman and a letter bearing No. C2/3282/2013, dated 07.11.2013 was issued to SDC by Special Collector, LA, Tarnaka to offer remarks on the complaint and to appoint any other officer for further inquiry in the matter. Meanwhile, the SDC entrusted the Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited to re-verify the above structures and submit estimates and on the basis of the estimations furnished by the Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited, an award was sent for an amount of Rs.81,34,134/- for approval of Special Collector, Hyderabad, and for the said amount only, the Special Collector, Tarnaka has approved and that inquiry will be conducted and after approval from the higher authorities, if any fraud is found, action will be initiated against all concerned officers. The respondent pray this Court to uphold the award bearing No.45/2013-14, File No.F/238/2012, dated 31.12.2013 for Rs.81,34,134/-.

An additional reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner reiterating the same submissions made in the reply. The petitioner submits that on a perusal of the letter dated 14.09.2013 filed along with the additional counter affidavit, it is shown that there is no signature of the said J.V. Muralidhar Rao, which itself speaks that the said letter is not genuine and is a false letter. It is further submitted that two awards in respect of the subject three houses were passed, one for an award amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/- by File No.F/238/2012, Award No.Nil/2013-14 dated Nil-12-2013, and another award for an amount of Rs.81,34,134/- by File No.F/238/2012, Award No.45/2013-14 dated 31.12.2013 and that no inquiry has been conducted on the officials and officers since 2013-14, and eventually pray to allow the writ petition.

The learned Senior Counsel, Sri Raja Sripathi Rao appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the main grievance of the petitioners is that the compensation awarded to petitioners land being acquired under the impugned award was reduced from about Rs.1,29,22,244/- to Rs.81,34,134/- acquired for the proposed construction of Mid Manair Reservoir / Irrigation Project effecting the agricultural lands and houses situated in various villages, and the subject village by name Neelojipalli, H/O Kodurupaka village was notified as a fully submerged village in which petitioners' houses were requisitioned at Sl.Nos.179, 191 and 192. Pursuant to the requisition of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 issued Section 4(1) notification published in AP Gazette No.SRP 039 dated 19.12.2008 and declaration notification was issued under Section 6 of Act 1 of 1894 and published in AP Gazette No.SRP 058 dated 31.12.2009, and the petitioners' houses are reflected at Sl.Nos.179, 191 and 192. The possession of the subject houses was taken on 04.01.2012. The Government earlier issued G.O.Rt.No.917 constituting a three-man committee for conducting social audit of valuation estimates of structures in which the petitioners' houses were also put to verification by the three-man committee, and thereafter the committee submitted a report to respondent No.3 by letter dated 12.06.2013 recommending valuation of House No.2-20 as Rs.20,64,000/-, House No.2-35/A as Rs.21,29,000/- and House No.2-35/B as Rs.21,50,000/- for passing of award and payment of compensation. Learned Senior Counsel submits that basing on the estimates furnished by the three-man committee, respondent No.3 passed award by File No.F/238/2012, Award No.Nil/2013-14 dated Nil-12-2013 for the subject three houses totalling an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/-, and the same was approved by the Special Collector, Hyderabad and forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, Jagtial, who in turn addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Karimnagar seeking release of Rs.1,29,22,244/- by enclosing Form-III.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that similar letters were addressed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation seeking release of Rs.1,29,22,244/-. On 11.06.2014, respondent No.3 addressed a Land Acquisition letter to the Assistant Pay & Accounts Officer, Works & Projects, Karimnagar, requesting to issue authorisation for Land Acquisition payments for an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/-. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that though the award was passed for the subject three houses, respondent No.3 again got estimated the value of the subject three houses without issuing any notice to the petitioners with the help of Agriculture Finance Corporation, NABARD, Hyderabad, and reduced the valuation of houses estimates and passed another impugned award in an antedated/backdated manner by File No.F/238/2012, Award No.45/2013-14 dated 31.12.2013 for an amount of Rs.81,34,134/- under Act 1 of 1894 for the subject three houses. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the very same officer, i.e., respondent No.3, had passed two awards - one for Rs.1,29,22,244/- and another antedated/backdated for Rs.81,34,134/- - passed behind the back of the petitioners for the subject three houses and further submits that when respondent No.3 had passed the impugned award dated 31.12.2013 for Rs.81,34,134/-, respondent No.3 did not substantiate on what basis he addressed letters to the Irrigation Department authorities on 12.03.2014 and 12.06.2014 seeking to provide an amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/- for payment of compensation in respect of the very same subject three houses by enclosing Form-III statements. Learned Senior counsel would submit that in the counter, no submissions were made on these aspects and further submits that the Central Government through Ministry of Rural Development had issued Gazette Notification No. S.O. 3729(E) appointing 01.01.2014 as the date on which the new Act 30 of 2013 came into force and that as per Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondent is bound to make an award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration, and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of land shall lapse. Learned Senior counsel would submit that in the instant case, as per the impugned award, the publication of declaration was recorded as 05.02.2009, then the award ought to have been passed by 04.02.2011 and even if the latest date of publication of declaration is taken into consideration, i.e., 31.12.2009, respondent No.3 ought to have passed the award by 30.12.2011. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the land acquisition proceedings have already been lapsed in the instant case, therefore, the question of passing an award dated 31.12.2013 is barred in law. Further, the petitioners have already filed W.P.No.20711/2016 seeking to pay compensation as per the three-man committee recommendations / proposals dated 12.06.2013. The learned Senior Counsel further draws attention of this Court that in the counter filed by respondent No.3 in W.P.No.20711/2016, and would submit that the counter affidavit is completely silent on the aspect of passing of award by File No.F/238/2012, Award No.Nil/2013-14 dated Nil-12-2013 for Rs.1,29,22,244/- for the subject three houses, and is also silent on the aspect of Section 11-A of Act 1 of 1894. Further, even as per the impugned award dated 31.12.2013, the award is passed only for dwelling area / plinth area of each house, and no award is passed as on date with regard to the open area covered for each house, though the structure, dwelling area / plinth area and open area of all three houses are notified in AP Gazette No.SRP 058 dated 31.12.2009 and that the Land Acquisition Act did not contemplate passing of a part award and deferring part of extent, thereby, the impugned award is in clear violation of Section 11(1) of Act 1 of 1894. Learned Senior Counsel further draws attention to the counter filed by respondent No.3 stating that after lapse of about eleven years, the present writ petition is filed and on the aspect of lapse, the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi & Ors. (2024 SCC Online SC 3725).

Learned Senior Counsel further draws attention to the statement showing the requisition of LOC under the head of account and refers to the file and date in which draft award was submitted, i.e., File No.F/238/2012 dated Nil-12-2013 for a draft award amount of Rs.1,29,22,244/- signed by the Executive Engineer, Division No.4, IFFC-1. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the draft notification under Section 4(1) was passed on 19.12.2008 and substance in the locality was published on 29.12.2008, and draft declaration under Section 6 was passed on 05.02.2009, and would submit that the date of publication of draft notification and draft declaration under Section 4(1) and 6 of the I A Act were reckoned as 29.12.2008 and 05.02.2009 respectively, and the impugned award was passed on 31.12.2013 and as per Section 11-A of Act 1 of 1894, the award was passed beyond two years and would submit that if an award is not passed within two years, the entire land acquisition proceedings lapses. In support of the submissions, relied on the judgment reported in 1994 (3) ALT 175. Reliance is also placed on Abdul Majeed Sahib v. DC & Ors. ((1997) 1 SCC 297).

Learned Senior counsel would further submit that since the subject lands were taken in possession on 04.01.2012, which is mentioned in the award dated 31.12.2013, the entire land acquisition concluded beyond the period of two years violating the provisions of Section 11-A and eventually pray this Hon'ble Court to allow both the writ petitions and to set aside the impugned draft award dated 31.12.2013 passed by the 3rd respondent under the provisions of Act 1 of 1894, with consequential direction to respondent authorities to pay compensation as per the three-man estimation committee proposals in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition would further submits that the draft preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued and the substance was published in the locality on 29.12.2008. The draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and the substance was published in the locality on 05.09.2009. Enquiry under Section 5-A was issued to the interested parties on 01.08.2009 to file objections by 01.09.2009. An enquiry into such claims and objections was scheduled on 02.09.2009. Possession of the lands were taken on 04.01.2012. The Individual notices under Sections 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act were issued on 17.03.2012, fixing the award enquiry on 29.03.2012, which was commenced on 29.03.2012 and concluded on 13.12.2013 and that an award was passed bearing File No.F/238/2012, Award No.45/2013-14, under Section 11(1) of the Act on 31.12.2013 and thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioners on 06.01.2014 to receive the award compensation and when the petitioners did not turn up to receive the award amount or file a claim under Section 18 of the Act, thereafter, on 09.03.2018, the matter was referred to the Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla under Section 30 of the Act vide File No.F/238/2012 and the award amount was deposited in Court vide cheque No.211273 dated 08.03.2018 and that as on date, an award has been passed for Rs.81,34,134/-only, and the same has been deposited in the jurisdictional Court under the award, and the petitioners may receive the same and for enhancement of compensation may pursue their remedy before the trial Court.

On a perusal of the inward register, at Serial No.20, it is recorded that the a cheque bearing No.211273, dated 08.03.2018 for Rs.81,34,134/-, along with enclosures, was received from the Special Deputy Collector on 12/03. L.A.Unit VII.FCC/MMRL, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar PCSSP Rajanna Sircilla, further, in the remarks column, it is recorded as "returned". In the reply affidavit, the petitioners submitted that, when the matter was referred to the Senior Civil Judge for deposit of compensation of Rs.81,34,134/-, the petitioners came to know that the reference made on 12.03.2018 by the Deputy Collector in C.F. LAOP No.220/2018 was returned on 14.05.2018 with office objections taken by the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has not taken any steps to resubmit the same by complying with the objections before the said Court.

On a perusal of the copy of endorsement and the inward register, no submissions were made by the learned Government Pleader to that extent. The respondents have failed to comply with the timelines as stipulated under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stipulates that the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and, if such award is not made, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. Section 11-A is extracted for reference:

In the case on hand, the preliminary notification was issued on 29.12.2008 and the draft declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 05.02.2009. The award was passed on 31.12.2013, which is beyond the prescribed time period under Section 11-A of the Act. It is also pertinent to note that possession was taken on 04.01.2012 and, though the compensation was deposited before the trial Court, the same has been returned and possession for the petitioners land/structures alone was taken. That apart, even the compensation amount has been returned on technical reasons as such the compensation amount was not deposited as on date. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, contemplates that the Collector has to pass an award under Section 11 and take possession of the land. In the case on hand, even going by the date of award, i.e., 31.12.2013, the respondents have taken possession of the land on 04.01.2012, thereby violating the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Majeed Sahib and Another v. District Collector and Others, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 297, observed that Section 11-A was introduced to mitigate the hardship of the land losers. The relevant paragraph is extracted for reference:

Further, this Court in Madhava Rao Gandhe and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Quli Qutubshah Urban Development Authority in W.P.No.14320 of 1994, MANU/AAP/0330/1994 (1994 (3) ALT 175), decided on 14.09.1994, observed that when the mandatory requirements under Section 11A of the Act have not been satisfied by the respondents, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act stood extinguished and as an inevitable corollary, the impugned award becomes non est under law. The relevant paragraph is extracted for reference:

Since the disputes raised in these writ petitions pertains to the determination of quantum of compensation submitted by the petitioners was reduced from Rs.11,29,22,244/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Nine Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Four only) to Rs. Rs.81,34,134/- (Rupees Eighty one lakhs thirty four thousand one hundred and thirty four only) which was decided by the Three Man Committee and the Agricultural Finances Corporation Limited, the same has not been answered by the respondents with valid proof. As such, at this belated stage, more so, when the structures are submerged and further enquiry is not possible, this Court in exercise of this jurisdiction under Article 224 of Constitution of India cannot adjudicate upon such disputed questions of fact. Further the award dated 31.12.2013 was passed beyond the prescribed Section 11-A under LA Act, 1894 and therefore unsustainable in law.

In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances and referring to the above judicial precedents and considering that the land has already been acquired and possession has been taken on 04.01.2012, the award dated 31.12.2013 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition Nos. 20711 of 2016 and 8826 of 2024 are allowed.

The respondents are directed to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the said Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 afresh and complete the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible.

With the above directions, Writ Petition Nos. 20711 of 2016 and 8826 of 2024 are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.