The failure to serve notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was fatal to the acquisition proceedings. Actual possession and tendering of compensation are essential to prevent lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT :

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 07.12.2022, passed in W.P. No. 7650 of 2009 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the Award No. 11, dated 14.02.2002 was set aside so far as it related to the land of the petitioner measuring three acres and thirty one cents primarily on the ground that the respondents had failed to serve a notice upon the petitioner under Section (9) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are that land measuring three acres and twelve cents situate in Sy.No. 497, Kothapalli Village was purchased by the petitioner, K.Rama Subba Reddy in the year 1974. The said land was sought to be acquired for purposes of expansion of an industrial estate and to that effect, a notification under Section 4(1) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short, “the Act, 1894”) was issued on 16.07.1999 and a declaration under Section 6(1) under the 1894 Act was issued on 15.01.2002. Finally, an Award was passed on 14.02.2002. A writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner in the year 2009, wherein the acquisition proceedings as also the Award No. 11, dated 14.02.2002, was challenged primarily on the ground that notice in terms of Section 9 of the 1894 Act had not been served.

3. The petitioner in paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition specifically claimed that he had all along been in possession of the property in question notwithstanding the fact that the Award was passed by the respondent No. 2. In the writ petition, it was stated that respondent Nos.4 & 5, i.e., the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, had never tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the subject land notwithstanding the fact that they claimed that the possession had been handed over to them in the year 2009 itself.

3.1. Cause of action was claimed by the petitioner to have accrued in the month of January, 2009, when respondent Nos.4 & 5 are stated to have interfered with the rights of the petitioner over the land in question on the premise that they had already been given possession of the same by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. It is then the petitioner claims that he got knowledge that the entire acquisition proceedings had been initiated in the names of C.Subbaramaiah, T.Subbarayudu, K.Konda Reddy and K.Maabhoomia and passed an Award on their names, even though, the petitioner was the absolute owner and in possession of the land in question.

4. In reply to paragraph No. 10, the official respondents stated that the possession of the land was taken and given to the Requisitioning Department i.e., the APIIC Limited on 14.03.2002, after passing of the Award and further that the Requisitioning Department had not taken up any works on the acquired lands due to the pendency of several cases on account of the same Award before the High Court. With regard to the factum of payment, the reply affidavit stated that payments had not been made to anybody, as the Awardees had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer during the Award enquiry proceedings and that the compensation amount of Rs.18,47,061/- had been deposited in the Government account vide Challan No. 151, dated 11.05.2002.

5. The reply affidavit and in particular the reply to paragraph No. 4 of the petition stated that after taking ‘possession’ of the land by the Requisitioning Department, they had developed the land for formation of roads for expansion of the Industrial Estate and that the land in question was no longer with the petitioner.

6. The learned single Judge, upon a perusal of the relevant record including the copies of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act and the declaration under Section 6 (1) of the 1894 Act, found that in the notification under Section 4 (1) published in Andhra Prabha on 24.06.