The key legal principle established in the judgment is that the award must be made within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the period during which the court had stayed the acquisition proceedings should be excluded for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years prescribed for making the award.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

“….to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records in proceedings RoC.No.A/79/2009 and Award No.1(SEZ)/2011-2012, dated 28.09.2011 on the file of the 4th respondent and declare it as being in violation of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently quash the same…..”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, it is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.53.93 cents of agricultural land in Survey Nos.4 to 14 of Madanapalem village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. When some third parties tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and incidentally the Government also claimed right over the said lands, shown as ‘A’ schedule, and another extent of 844 acres in Survey No.1 of Madanapalem village, the petitioner filed O.S.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District seeking relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed partly declaring the title of the petitioner over the subject lands and to an extent of 193 acres out of 844 acres. The petitioner preferred A.S.No.553 of 2007 against the above decree so far it went against it. In the said A.S., this Court granted injunction by way of an interim order initially for a period of 8 weeks on 30.10.2007 and the same was extended until further orders by an order dated 18.04.2008 and the said injunction is still subsisting. Whereas, the defendants 21 and 22 in the suit, namely, the District Collector and Tahsildar, representing the Government, have preferred A.S.No.211 of 2009 in so far as it went against the Government regarding Survey No.1 i.e., B schedule property. The said appeal is pending adjudication. The defendants 1 to 20 in the suit have not preferred any appeal. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner is absolute owner of A schedule property of O.S.No.22 of 1998 i.e. the subject matter of this writ petition.

It is the further case of the petitioner that, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification dated 21.03.2006 for the lands of the petitioner in the above A schedule under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act for establishing an industrial park by creating a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Thereafter, Section 6 declaration was issued on 18.04.2007 in the Gazette and the same was published in the local newspapers on 25.04.2007. The gist of the same was also published in the locality on 24.05.2007. In Section 4(1) notification the name of the petitioner was not reflected. Despite representations to the contrary, the Section 6 declaration published by the Government also did not reveal the petitioner’s name. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed writ Petition No.5476 of 2009, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 18.03.2009 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed of vide orders dated 24.06.2011 permitting the petitioner to participate in the award enquiry and directing the Special Deputy Collector, LA(SEZ) to consider the petitioner’s claims. Pursuantly, the petitioner made representations to the appropriate authority and considering the same, the authorities issued notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act on 19.08.2011. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the award enquiry held on 08.09.2011. The 4th respondent, after hearing objections of the petitioner and some other third parties, passed award in favour of the petitioner under Section 11(1) on 28.09.2011 to an extent of Ac.53.93 cents. However, the copy of the award was not furnished to the petitioner despite repeated representations asking for the same. Thus, the petitioner