1. Land with existing construction is exempt from acquisition under the Government policy. 2. An award under the Land Acquisition Act is not valid if the compensation amount is not tendered to the petitioners or deposited in court as required under Section 31 of the Act.

1. This order will also dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5894 to 5896 of 1986, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

2. The land of the petitioners was acquired by notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), dt. Nov. 17, 1982 and vide notification under Sec.6 of the Act, dated Dec. 10, 1984. The award is said to have been given on Sept. 21, 1986. The petitions were filed in this Court in Oct. 1986. The facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 5968 of 1986 are that the award was announced for the purpose on Sept. 21, 1986, when there were no funds whatsoever with the authorities to be paid to the owners of the land. It has also been stated in para 13 of the writ petition that other chunks of agricultural land of the petitioners were also acquired under another notification regarding which the award was announced on the same date i.e. on Sept. 21, 1986 and the petitioners and others approached the authorities for receiving compensation under protest with regard to the said agricultural land. However, as there was no money with the authorities, nothing has been paid nor the amount deposited in the treasury, as required under the law. It has also been averred that the petitioners raised pucka houses on the land acquired in the year 1978 and that the petitioners along with their respective families are living in those houses. According to the petitioners, the entire acquisition is discriminatory on the part of the authorities inasmuch as similarly situated persons houses and land have been left out of acquisition whereas the land on which the houses have been constructed by the petitioners has been acquired. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, it has been stated as a preliminary, objection that the possession has already been taken and, therefore, the land has vested in the State Government and that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. As regards the construction of the houses, it has been pleaded in para 2 of the return that it was denied for want of knowledge whether the families of the petitioners are residing therein. Again in paragraph 6 it has been reiterated that the petitioners were not having any house on the land in dispute on Nov. 17, 1982, i.e., the date of the issuance of the notification under Sec.4 of the Act. As regards the payment of compensation, it was stated in para 13, that the compensation of the land will be given to the petitioners shortly.

3. On the last date of hearing, i.e., Jan. 12, 1988, the land Acquisition Collector was directed to file an affidavit that the amount of award was tendered to the petitioners at the time of the making of the award on Sept. 21, 1986, as required under Sec.31 of the Act or in case of refusal the amount was deposited before the District Judge concerned. In pursuance of the said order, an affidavit dt. Feb. 10, 1988, was filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in this Court, which reads as under:

"As per the office report dt. 08-02-88 none of the petitioners was present at the time of the announcement of the award dt. 21-09-86. Therefore, the petitioners could not be paid the amount of compensation on the said date. The said amount has not been deposited in the R.D. or with the District Judge and is still lying with the office of the deponent."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since they have already constructed houses on the land acquired prior to the issuance of the notification under Sec.4 of the Act, the same was liable to be exempted from acquisition according to the Government policy. It was further submitted that the land on which the houses have been constructed by the other persons, has been exempted from acquisition and, therefore, the petitioners land was also liable to be exempted. In any case, argued the learned counsel no payment has been made up-till today under the award, nor the amount has been d