2021 Supreme(AP) 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
G.Venkateswarlu, S/o.G.Jannayya and four others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (L&A) and three others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.10583 OF 2020
Decided On : 30-04-2021

Point of Law: Acquisition of land - passing of award with a delay of six years etc., would render the Award invalid and land acquisition proceedings lapsed, in the absence of a specific provision dealing with the time limit under the N.H. Act, which is a special enactment with self-contained Code, cannot but be rejected

Headnote:

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 24, 25 and 26 - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3A - Advocates Act, 1961 - Sub-section (1) of Section 2 - New L.A. Act of 2013 - Section 105(3) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Acquisition of land – Claim of compensation - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction - Whether Award is null and void due to noncompliance with provisions of N.H. Act and on ground that proceedings were conducted behind back of petitioners - Whether Notification under Section 3A of N.H. Act ceases to have any effect as Section 3D Declaration was not issued within one year from date of said Notification - Whether Award was lapsed by virtue of application of Section 25 of Act 30 of 2013 to acquisition proceedings under N.H. Act - Petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of agricultural and non-agricultural lands in different survey numbers in Village West Godavari District - They are cultivating said lands and are in enjoyment of same - Lands of petitioners are situated abutting to National Highway and very valuable potential agricultural lands - There was a proposal to acquire lands from petitioners for construction of Toll Gate and they made representations to 3rd respondent not to acquire lands as it is their only source for cultivation – Thereafter respondents have not proceeded with acquisition and petitioners thought that acquisition proceedings have been stopped - But all of a sudden some people came to petitioners lands along with crane and men and tried to mark land by excavating earth - With great difficulty petitioners resisted them and rushed to 3rd respondent –

Finding of the Court:

Proceedings were conducted behind back of petitioners - As observed earlier except a pleading to effect that they came to know about proceedings initiated under N.H. Act on obtaining a copy of Award there was no denial by petitioners about issuance of Notification under Section 3A in accordance with statutory provisions of N.H. Act nor challenge to consequential Declaration under Section 3D on ground that no opportunity was afforded to file objections under Section 3C of N.H. Act - Therefore it cannot be treated as a case of denial of opportunity or deprivation of right to file objections hearing under Section 3C of N.H. Act - However as pointed out by learned counsel for respondents a perusal of the Award would clearly reveal participation of petitioners in enquiry proceedings under Section 3G of N.H. Act - Material on record belies plea of petitioners and nondisclosure of this crucial fact is not only misleading but also constitutes suppression of material facts disentitles them from securing relief sought for and writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone - Though learned counsel for petitioners sought to place reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench case referred to supra same is not applicable in view of above stated facts - Other miscellaneous submissions to effect that passing of award with a delay of six years etc would render Award invalid and land acquisition proceedings lapsed in absence of a specific provision dealing with time limit under N.H. Act, which is a special enactment with self-contained Code cannot but be rejected – Further grievances of petitioners with regard to determination of compensation cannot be a ground for interference with Award by this Court and same can be agitated before Arbitrator as provided under Section 3G(5) of N.H. Act - Contentions advanced with reference to sustainability of Award are not tenable – Hence same are rejected – Accordingly interim order shall stand vacated - There is no statutory violation/non-compliance with provisions of N.H. Act nor Award is hit by application of Section 25 of Act 30 of 2013 - This Court finds no circumstances warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India –

Result: Writ petition is dismissed