C. V. N. SASTRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS contempt case has come to us on an order of reference dated 5-7-1996 made by our learned Brother Mr. Justice Moiilal B. Naik who felt that the case involves substantial questions of law and it is, therefore, desirable to place it before a Division Bench. The facts leading to the contempt case are as follows :

( 2 ) THE petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a premises bearing Municipal No. 5-6-386 admeasuring 230 Sq. yards situated at Fathesultan Lane (Chcragali Lane of Hyderabad, which was acquired by the respondents along with some other lands for the purpose of allotment to hut-dwellers belonging to S. Cs. , B. Cs. , and other weaker sections, filed W. P. No. 18992 of 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said premises and pass award after due enquiry. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23-3-1995 directing the respondents to issue fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said premises and pass award after due enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the said directions, the second respondent, Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Land Acquisition), Kachiguda, issued notification under Section 4 ( 1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which were published in the Gazette dated 17-6-1995. After completing the award enquiry, the second respondent prepared a draft award and forwarded the same to the first respondent i. e. , the Collector, Hyderabad, for approval on 26-10-1995. Alleging that the first respondent did not finalise the matter and no compensation was paid to her even after the lapse of 9 months from the date of the High Court s order, the petitioner filed the above contempt case on 21-12-1995 praying to take action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the Court s order dated 23-3-1995.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that, after the contempt case was filed, the respondents have changed the earlier award dated 26-10-1995 whereunder the compensation payable to her was fixed at Rs. 34,36,468. 00 and passed another award dated 30-12-1995 reducing the compensation to Rs. 7,72,537. 00 without any notice to the petitioner and that the second award dated 30-12-1995 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and that it amounts to a deliberate and wilful violation of the order passed in the writ petition. In proof of the said allegations, the petitioner produced a xerox copy of the alleged original award dated 26-10-1995 and also axerox copy of the letter dated 26-10-1995 addressed by the second respondent to the first respondent in mat behalf.

( 5 ) THE stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that though a draft award was initially prepared by the second respondent on 26-10-1995, the same was subsequently revised after collecting various statistics and the award was finalised and approved by the first respondent on 30-12-1995 for Rs. 7,72,557. 00and the same was duly communicated to the petitioner under Section 12 (2) of the Act on 6-1-1996 calling upon the petitioner to receive the payment, but the petitioner did not choose to accept the same. It is the further contention of the respondents that the second respondent cannot pass an award without the approval of the Collector and that as per G. O. Ms. No. 1843 Revenue (K) Department dated 13-12-1984, the competent authority to accord approval is the District Collector/joint Collector/special Collector in the districts who is looking after the land acquisition cases. In the present case the Joint Collector, who was looking after the land acquisition cases, granted approval on 30-12-1995. The draft award prepared on 26-10-1995 is no award in the eye of law as the same was neither approved by the competent authority nor was it communicated to the petitioner. The p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document