N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 23476 of 1997. Writ petitioner is the appellant. She filed the said writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay interest till the final award is passed and consequently to quash the award dated 13-5-1997 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Uppal, Hyderabad as the same is passed in violation of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 2 ) A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. One Suit. Bhagirathibai was the owner of land measuring Ac. 271-18 guntas known as shikarga in Anantasagar, hamlet of Anantagiri village, Vikarabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. For the purpose of reserve forestation, the Government issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 7-7-1970 proposing to acquire the entire extent of land. In the preliminary valuation, the Land Acquisition Officer valued the entire land at Rs. 13,64,744-89 ps. Later an award was passed by the L. A. O. for a compensation of Rs. 3,69,959-71 ps. Challenging the same the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8624/1989 to quash the said award on the ground that the L. A. O. committed mistake in passing the award for only Rs. 3,69,959-71 ps. That writ petition was disposed of on 4-7-1991 directing the authorities to follow the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act from the stage of Section 9 proceedings under the said Act onwards. It was also ordered that the claimant is entitled to withdraw the interest on the amount of compensation. Subsequent to the above order dated 4-7-1991, again the authorities committed the same mistake what they have committed earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12670 of 1994. The said writ petition was disposed of on 14-12-1995 directing the authorities to pass award at an early date. Pursuant to the said order, the authorities have passed orders determining the total compensation payable at Rs. 1,31,162, thus reducing the earlier award and further ordering that the balance amount (i. e. , the amount arrived at after deducting the sum of Rs. 1,13,162 from the sum of Rs. 3,69,959-71 ps) be recovered from the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of recovery etc. , the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 23476 of 1997 contending that reducing the compensation which was awarded by the L. A. O. is not correct; fixing the award second time is not in confirmity with the first proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the orders of the authorities are otherwise bad in law.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge went through the records particularly to" know whether the requirement as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 11 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was complied with or not. The learned single Judge found that there was prior approval of the award by the Joint Collector on 19-6-1996 itself. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge runs thus:"on the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents placed before this Court relevant papers, in original, and submits that the approval was already granted to the authority who passed the award by the competent authority on 19-6-1996 and thereafter the award was passed on 13-5-1997 and it was only sent for counter-signature to the Joint Collector on 16-6-1997 and not for approval for passing the award and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. He further submits that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act have been duly complied with and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. A perusal of the inspection report of the Joint Collector dated 19-6-1996, it is clear that after inspection of the land the amount has been fixed at Rs. 200. 00 per acre and the same was appro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document