L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE land of the petitioner admeasuring about Ac. 3. 00 in S. No. 143/3-A of bhagampalle Village, hamlet of Sundupalle mandal, Cuddapah District was acquired by the respondents in the year 1985 for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 5-12-1985. and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 20-2-1986. An award was passed on 15-3-1986 determining the compensation at rs. 10,000/- per acre and the total compensation together with the statutory benefits was fixed at Rs. 40,170. 00.

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent who is the Land acquisition Officer ordered that the compensation shall be paid to the petitioner in 5 annual instalments of Rs. 8,034. 00 for year. The petitioner was paid two instalments on 3-3-1986 and 3-3-1987. Thereafter he was not paid any amount. He approached the respondent number of times through representations. Since there was no reply, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation with interest as per the award dated 15-3-1986.

( 3 ) THE respondents filed counter-affidavit admitting that the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 3. 00 was acquired in the year 1985 and the award was passed on 15-3-1986. It is also admitted that the award provided for payment of compensation in 5 instalments and out of them only two instalments were paid. As regards the nonpayment of the balance of the amount the justification pleaded by the respondents is that in the year 1990 they received certain representations to the effect that the petitioner has alienated some plots in favour of third parties under agreements of sale. It was also pleaded that one Mr. Siva Reddy claimed that he is the owner of an extent of ac. 1. 10 cents out of the Ac. 3. 00. In view of these objections the respondents claim that they are justified in withholding the payment of balance of compensation to the petitioner.

( 4 ) SRI Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award in so far as it provided for payment of the compensation in instalments is contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition act. It is also his contention that once an award is passed, the land stood vested in the government free from encumbrances. The respondents have distributed the land to the various beneficiaries, who in turn constructed houses and it is not open to the respondents to deny the compensation on the basis of certain representations said to have been made by third parties.

( 5 ) SMT. Nanda R. Rau, learned Assistant government Pleader for Land Acquisition, submits that the Land Acquisition Act does hot prohibit the payment of compensation in instalments. She further submits that since the respondents received representations touching upon the title of the petitioner to the acquired land, the amount was withheld so that it can be paid to the proper person.

( 6 ) THE fact that the land of the petitioner was acquired and that an award was passed on 15-3-1986 is not in dispute and it is a matter of recoid. The first aspect that needs to be considered as to whether the award dated 15-3-1986 in so far as it provided for instalments is valid and legal.

( 7 ) THE Land Acquisition Act is a selfcontained code. It provides for the various steps to be taken in the process of acquisition. Passing of award is almost the final stage. The Act contemplates the payment of compensation to the owners of the land at the time of passing of award itself except where there is a dispute as to title, in which case the compensation has to be deposited into the concerned civil court. Passing of award providing for payment of the compensation in instalments is something unknown to law. The principle of common-law that a transaction will be complete only on passing of the consideration is in no way deviated under the Land Acquisition Act. Vesting of the title under Section 16 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document