Heard the petitioner in person and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on behalf of the respondents.

2. This case illustrates yet again the disregard of the legislative mandate [of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (‘the Act’)], by the executive branch of the State.

3. The petitioner assails the acquisition process including the Draft Notification u/Sec.4(1), (dispensing with the salutary process of inquiry u/Sec.5A of the Act by irrational and unwarranted invocation of urgency u/Sec.17) and the wholly inexplicable failure of the State to tender and pay 80% of the estimated compensation amount.

4. As the substantive facts are admitted this court prefers to record the flow of events from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent - the District Collector, Nizamabad:

A) On the instructions of the State Government the Nodal Officer, the M.R.O. and the M. D.O. of Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District conducted “Prajala Vaddaku Palana” in 1998. At this event the people of Venchiriyal village belonging to the weaker sections represented to the Nodal Officer to provide house sites. In response 3rd respondent along with the Mandal Surveyor and the Panchayat Secretary of the village inspected the lands in the village and identified an extent of Ac.4.23 gts, in Sy.No. 4 as suitable for house sites. The 3rd respondent was also satisfied that there were no Government or poramboke lands available in the village. The 3rd respondent selected the above land for acquisition and submitted proposals. The Notification u/Sec. 4(1) was initially published in the District Gazette on 12.10.1998. Thereafter, realizing that the means did not match the desire, the notification was withdrawn u/Sec. 48(1). The withdrawal was also notified in the District Gazette.

B) The petitioner, one of the land owners, filed W.P.No. 11361 of 2003 questioning the withdrawal notification and seeking a direction for payment of compensation. The writ petition is stated to be pending.

C) In the year 2003 the villagers (who had earlier represented during ‘Prajala Vaddaku Palana’ in 1998) reiterated their demand for house sites. The 1st respondent thereupon reactivated the acquisition proposals. Eventually the Notification u/Sec.4(1) along with a Draft Declaration u/Sec.6 was published in the District Gazette Nos. 52 and 53, on 14.11.2003. The local publication in the daily press and in the locality ritually followed. Admittedly urgency was invoked and inquiry u/Sec.5A dispensed with. Notices u/Sec. 9(1) and 10 are

stated to have been put on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat and notices u/Sec. 9(3) and 10 were issued on 7.8.2006 scheduling the date for the award enquiry on 25.8.2006.

D) Though the land in Sy.No.4 of the village is in the name of 9 persons including the petitioner, notices u/Sec. 9(3) and 10 though issued to all interested persons, were not communicated to three of them. The other six including the petitioner have received the notices on 10.11.2006.

E) Advance possession of the land was taken on 20.3.2004, under a panchanama.

F) The acquisition process has not lapsed though the award was not passed within two years of the Notification u/Sec.4(1). Since advance possession of the land was taken (on 20.3.2004), the acquisition did not lapse, as Sec.11 A has no application.

G) Since the petitioner returned from the USA he cannot claim that he is solely dependent on the land proposed for acquisition (implication being that not tendering or paying 80% of the estimated compensation amount, in violation of Sec.17-3A, is of no consequence).

5. On 17.11.2006 the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was directed to obtain instructions from the respondents as to the relevant dates on which the acquisition process was pursued including the date on which possession of the land was taken and whether 80% of the estimated compensation amount was tendered and paid to the petitioner. On 20.11.2006 the 1st re