IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that compliance with procedural requirements in land acquisition is essential, and failure to notify affected parties or timely deposit of compensation invalidates the acquisition process.

JUDGMENT :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.S. Varma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These three appeals arise out of a common order of a learned single judge of this Court dated 20.07.2023 and are being disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The respondents, for the purpose of laying National Highway No.544(D) from Ananthapuram to Giddalur Road Section initiated acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) for various lands, including the lands of the appellants herein.

4. The preliminary notification under Section 3(A) of the Act dated 09.12.2017 was published in the newspapers, after the Central Government had authorized the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector (4th respondent in writ petition) as the competent authority for such land acquisition, by way of S.O.No.2698(E) dated 21.08.2017 published in the Gazettee of India. Subsequent proceedings that had to be initiated under various sub sections of Section 3 of the Act were also taken up culminating in publication of notification under Section 3(G) by the 3rd respondent dated 04.08.2018 and 29.08.2018 respectively. Thereafter, 39 awards for land acquired in about 29 villages, were passed between 22.09.2018 to 10.06.2019. The awards in relation to the appellants in W.A.No.843 of 2023 and W.A.No.850 of 2023 were passed on 24.10.2018. The award in relation to W.A.No.744 of 2023 was passed on 10.06.2019. The compensation amount payable under the first two awards, amounting to Rs.1,67,71,129/- was also deposited in the account of the 3rd respondent on 14.11.2018. At this stage, the proposal for building the said National Highway, is said to have been dropped and nothing further was heard. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, by a letter dated 05.03.2022 addressed to the 5th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuram stated that a decision had been taken to revive the acquisition process and called upon the 5th respondent-R.D.O to obtain basic value details, as on 01.01.2022, from the concerned Sub-Registrars as the awards passed under Section 3(G) were between the period 22.09.2018 to 10.09.2019.

5. In pursuance of these instructions, the appellants and other affected persons were called, on 15.03.2023, to attend a meeting convened by the 5th respondent-RDO, on 16.03.2022. In this meeting, on 16.03.2022, the 5th respondent-RDO informed the land owners that awards had already been passed in the years 2018 and 2019 and compensation would be paid to them as per the said awards.

6. Aggrieved by the passing of such awards and the proposal of the respondents to pay compensation in accordance with such awards, the appellants herein had moved writ petitions before this Court. These writ petitions, along with some other writ petitions filed by other affected parties were heard together and dismissed by way of a common order dated 20.06.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present appeals have been filed.

7. The case of the appellants before the learned single judge was that none of the appellants were aware of the passing of any award, by the competent authority, in the year 2018 and 2019 and the first intimation of such an award was given to them only on 16.03.2022. The appellants contended that such an award is contrary to the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 as the award should have been preceded by deposit of compensation whereas no such compensation was deposited as required under Section 3(H) of the Act. Such an award, passed without deposit of compensation would amount to a paper award which cannot be permitted. The judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Madhavarao Gandhe vs. land Acquisition Officer, 1994 (3) ALT 175 was relied upon.

8. The award fixing compensation was passed on the basis of land prices in