( 1 ) AN extent of Ac. 18. 19 cents of land in sy. No. 74-1 and 74-3 of Akuledu Village, singanamala Mandal, Anantapur District, has been acquired by the respondents for the purpose of establishing Agricultural research Farm. Award was passed on 23-09-1996. The petitioners were awarded compensation of Rs. 70,968. 20 ps. However, only part of the awarded compensation was paid while passing award, and an amount of rs. 37,752/- remains unpaid. The father of the 6th petitioner is said to have filed C. D. No. 66 of 1992 on the file of the District consumer Forum, Anantapur. The District forum passed an order on 03-4-1992 directing the respondents to deposit the balance of compensation within three months. Even that was not complied with. The 1st respondent referred the matter to the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, anantapur, under Section 31 (2) of the Land acquisition Act. The same came to be dealt with as O. P. No. 124 of 1992. Even that reference was answered in favour of the petitioners through order dated 20-12-1995. Despite the same, the amount was not paid. After exhausting all avenues, the petitioners have approached this Court for payment of balance of compensation. ( 2 ) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission on 01-11-2002, time was granted to the learned Government Pleader for Land acquisition to ascertain as to whether the facts stated by the petitioners are correct. It is represented that what is stated by the petitioners is true and steps are being taken to pay the balance of compensation. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. ( 4 ) IT is a matter of record that the lands of the petitioners wee acquired and award was passed way back in 1986. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were paid only about half of the compensation awarded to them, and the balance of the compensation remains unpaid even as on today. The proceedings initiated by the petitioners under the consumer Disputes Act and various notices, proved to be futile. The order of the civil court in O. P. No. 124 of 1992 was just ignored by the respondents. The proceedings initiated by the petitioners under the consumer Disputes Act and various notices, proved to be futile. The order of the civil court in O. P. No. 124 of 1992 was just ignored by the respondents. From the record it is evident that the 2nd respondent has done nothing more than addressing letter dated 02-08 1992, informing the Advocate of the petitioners that the Commissioner and director of Agriculture, Hyderabad, has addressed letter dated 15-06-1992 to the secretary to government, Food and agriculture, to release the amount, and as soon as the funds are released, the petitioners will be paid the amounts. Ten years have been elapsed and there is no progress in the matter. ( 5 ) THE Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ), for all practical purposes, is a self- contained Code. It provides for the procedure to be adopted for compulsory acquisition of lands for public purpose. If prescribes the procedure for issuance of notification, taking possession of the lands, payment of compensation, reference of the matters to civil Courts, appeals against judgments of the civil Court etc. , and all other allied matters. ( 6 ) THE passing of award under Section 11 is not an empty formality. Under Section 31 of the Act, the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under the award is required to be tendered to the persons entitled to receive the same. Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act reads as under:"on making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. " ( 7 ) A combined reading of Sections 11 and 31 (1) of the Act indicates that the passing of award is incomplete without the tendering the payment of compensation. If there is no dispute as apportionment, the persons found to be entitled to receive the compensation under the award are to be paid the same. If there exists any such dispute, the Land acquisition Officer is required to refer the matter to civil Court under Section 30 of the act, duly depositing the compensation in the Court. If there is no dispute as apportionment, the persons found to be entitled to receive the compensation under the award are to be paid the same. If there exists any such dispute, the Land acquisition Officer is required to refer the matter to civil Court under Section 30 of the act, duly depositing the compensation in the Court. ( 8 ) AFTER paying half of the compensation, the 1st respondent referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 31 (2) of the Act. Even before reference was made, the 1st respondent was under obligation to deposit the said amount into the Court. That was not done. Even after the reference was answered in favour of the petitioners, the balance of the compensation was not paid to them. Inasmuch as the entire compensation was not paid or deposited, strictly speaking, there did not exist any valid award and thereby the consequences provided for under section 11-A have to follow. The failure of the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners for their lands, cannot be justified under by pretext. It only exhibits the indifference on the part of the respondents. ( 9 ) THE Land Acquisition Act cannot be used as a tool to assume the possession of the lands of citizens without payment of compensation. The fact that the Act enables the Government to take advance possession, or permits it to enter the land even before the award is passed, cannot be permitted to be converted into a licence, to unauthorisedly occupy the lands. It should not be forgotten that the Act is a substitute for the ordinary procedure of purchase of lands by the government wherever they are needed. Though the Act clothes the Government with the power of compulsory acquisition, it did not relieve the Government of payment of compensation to the land owners. The acquisition proceedings remain incomplete without payment of compensation. Sections 16 and 17 of the Act assume significance in this regard. Under Section 16, the acquired land vests in the Government only when award is passed. In the Law of property, the vesting can take place only when the consideration for the property passes to the tranferer. The acquisition proceedings remain incomplete without payment of compensation. Sections 16 and 17 of the Act assume significance in this regard. Under Section 16, the acquired land vests in the Government only when award is passed. In the Law of property, the vesting can take place only when the consideration for the property passes to the tranferer. When Section 16 says that the land shall vests absolutely in the government on the award being passed under Section 11 and possession of the land being taken, it pre-supposes the payment of compensation as contemplated under section 31 of the Act. Failure to follow the procedure may not result in proper vestiture of the property. Where urgency clauses are invoked under Section 17, the land shall vest in the Government when possession thereof is taken. Sub-section 3 (a) of Section 17 of the act directs that even where such possession is taken under sub-section (1) thereof, the land Acquisition Officer shall tender payment of 80% of the compensation. Non-compliance of sub-section 3 (a) would render the vestiture under Section 17 (1) ineffective. Viewed from any angle, the Government does not derive any title unless the compensation is paid. At any rate, once an award is passed and the reference made under Section 31 (2) of the Act was answered in favour of the petitioners, failure to pay the compensation, as a whole, or in part, render such award incomplete. Hence, the acts and omissions of the respondents in not paying the balance of compensation to the petitioners cannot be justified. It is possible to take a view that only such of the land of the petitioners, for which the compensation is paid, vested in the Government and it has occupied and continued in possession in the remaining extent of the land without any lawful entitlement and basis. In such an event, the petitioners would not only be entitled to resume such extent of the land, but also would be entitled to recover the mesne profits for the enjoyment by the Government of the said extent. It is rather sad that while hundreds of crores are spent on populistic claims and scores of people are walking away with the Government funds on one pretext or the other, the persons, whose lands were acquired, are made to run from pillar to post for more than one-and-half decades. It is rather sad that while hundreds of crores are spent on populistic claims and scores of people are walking away with the Government funds on one pretext or the other, the persons, whose lands were acquired, are made to run from pillar to post for more than one-and-half decades. It is a sad reflection on the functioning of those who are responsible for such state of affairs. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 37,752/- to the petitioners together with interest at 15% per annum within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In default, the land acquisition proceedings, insofar as they relate to such part of the land for which compensation was not paid, shall stand set aside and it shall be open to the petitioners to resume the possession of the same and claim mesne profits from the respondents ever since the date of taking possession of such land. This harsh measure is adopted in view of the supine indifference and gross arbitrariness exhibited by the respondents in the matter of payment of balance of compensation to the petitioners and in view of the legal consequences that flow from various provisions of the Land Acquisition act. No order as to costs.