Award validity under the Land Acquisition Act hinges on strict adherence to prescribed timelines, with stays influencing but not absolving time limits for passing awards.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri P. Raja Gopal Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1753 of 2008, Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant in W.A.No.1161 of 2010, Smt. Iswarya Nagula, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1162 of 2010, Sri Malladi Lakshmi Narayana, the respondent in W.A.No.1753 of 2008, W.A.No.522 of 2009 and W.A.No.125 of 2010, who is appearing as party-in-person. Sri Malladi Lakshmi Narayana has submitted written arguments which have been perused by us.

2. All these Writ Appeals are being disposed of, by way of a common Judgment, as they arise out of two separate orders of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh and raise essentially the same facts and questions of law.

3. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation had intended to establish an automobile industrial estate at Kanuru Village, near Vijayawada, and had sought the assistance of the Government for acquiring necessary land for this purpose. The government had initiated acquisition proceedings for approximately 148 acres of land situated in Sy.Nos.181 to 184 of Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal. The said acquisition process was challenged, by way of W.P.No.2370 of 1988, and the same came to be quashed by a Judgment of this Court. Subsequently, a fresh notification for acquiring an extent of Ac.152.08 cents in Sy.No.60/2 and 61 to 63 of Kanuru Village was issued. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) was published in the Gazette of 21.04.1995. The enquiry, under Section 5-A of the Act, was dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 28.04.1995. The last publication of the declaration, under Section 6 , was carried out in the local newspapers, on 23.05.1995. Thereafter, initially, two writ petitions came to be filed, questioning the notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration under Section 6 , by way of W.P.No.10651 of 1995 and W.P.No.10652 of 1995. The said W.P.No.10652 of 1995 came to be filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.3957 of 2006. Similarly W.P.No.10651 of 1995 came to be filed by one Malladi Krishna Mohan, who subsequently passed away and his legal heirs were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4 in that writ petition. The said writ petitions were filed and interim directions of stay of further proceedings was granted, in both writ petitions, on 30.05.1995. On 28.06.1995 and 04.07.1995, these orders, in both writ petitions, were modified and the stay was restricted to stay of dispossession, with liberty being granted to the respondent authorities to complete all other formalities. Subsequently, both these writ petitions came to be dismissed on 12.08.2003. The writ appeals filed against the order of dismissal also came to be dismissed. After the dismissal of the writ petitions and the Writ Appeals, an award, dated 05.08.2005, is said to have been passed by the Collector. The said award was challenged, by the writ petitioners in W.P.No.10651 of 1995, by way of W.P.No.24105 of 2006. It may also be noted that Writ petitioners