The petitioners in both the writ petitions are owners of different extents of land in Sy.No.351 of Bomraspet Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The erstwhile Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, which has now become the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, has taken up the project of formation of Outer Ring road, encircling Hyderabad City, and quite large number of sub-urban villages. That needed acquisition of huge extents of land. The road was to pass through Bomraspet village. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 23-04-2005, proposing acquisition of the said land. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 30-04-2006.

The petitioners state that they raised several objections for the acquisition, at various stages, particularly as to frequent changes of alignment, yielding to pressures. It is alleged that on 27-03-2007, as many as three notices were issued, proposing to conduct award enquiry and requiring the petitioners to appear before the the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), i.e. the 3rd respondent herein, on 11-04-2007. The petitioners contend that, when they appeared before the 3rd respondent, no survey or enquiry has taken place on 11-04-2007. The petitioners state that to their surprise, their watchman received notice dated 24-02-2010, purported to be under Section 12(2) of the Act, stating that an award was passed on 18-04-2008. They contend that at no point of time, they are served with the notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act. It is stated that on their verification, notices dated 27-03-2008 were issued by the 3rd respondent, proposing to hold award enquiry on 08-04-2008, whereas in the award, it was mentioned that the award was conducted in the year 2006 itself. The petitioners challenge the award passed in respect of their lands. They state that, neither any compensation was paid, nor offered to them.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the lands of the petitioner was issued on 23-04-2005, and declaration under Section 6 was issued, one year thereafter, i.e. 30-04-2006. The petitioners participated at various stages of the proceedings, and objected to the acquisition of the land. However, they do not challenge the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. Instead they have participated in the subsequent proceedings also.

The three sets of notices dated 27-03-2007 were dispatched to the petitioners. The purport of all the notices is that, the survey of the land and further verification will be undertaken on 11-04-2007. The petitioners state that no survey or any other proceedings have taken place on 11-04-2007. Thereafter, the petitioners were not served with proceedings, till March, 2010, when a notice dated 24-02-2010 was served, under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The object of issuing notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is to inform the parties that an award is going to be pronounced. The award naturally must precede an enquiry under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Irrespective of the nature of enquiry, the award must be pronounced on the date, specified under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Curiously enough, the notice served on the petitioners, in the year 2010, made a mention to the award dated 18-04-2008. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Act was amended in the year 1984, fixing the timeframe, for publication of notifications, pronouncement of award, etc., and the consequences that flow, on account of failure to follow the timeframe. The 3rd respondent does not appear to have kept that in view. Therefore, the very notice dated 24-02-2010, under Section 12(2) of the Act is untenable in law.

The petitioners state that on their verification they came to know that notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act were dispatched by the 3rd respond