COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The General Manager, Secunderabad and Divisional Manager, vijayawada of the South Central Railway and Union of India filed the Writ Appeals Nos.752 and 753 of 1999 aggrieved by the common order dated 24.03.1999 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.20360/1996 and W.P.No.17068/1997 respectively. The same appellants filed Writ Appeal No.1550/2003 against the interlocutory order dated 15.04.2003 in dismissing the WPMP.23679/2002 in W.P.No.32745/1997. 2. Writ Appeal Nos.853 and 979 of 1999 are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-Collector), Vijayawada aggrieved by the very same common order of a learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.17068/1997 and 20360/1996, dated 24.03.1999. Thus, these four writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 24.03.1999 made in W.P.Nos.17068/1997 and 20630/1996 at the instance of the South Central Railway, Union of India and Land Acquisition Officer. 3. W.P.No.16060/2002 is filed by Dulipala Venkata Satyanarayana, questioning the jurisdiction of the Principal Suboridinate Judge, Vijayawada in entertaining and deciding the compensation, payable for the land, admeasuring Ac.1.48 cents covered by NTS No.2, acquired by 4(1) notification, dated 26.03.1990, in view of the pendency of the Writ Appeal Nos.752 and 753 of 1999 on the file of this Court questioning the validity of Award No.11/1996 by the Land Acquisition Officer and consequently return the reference to the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. W.P.No.20360/1996 is filed by D.Vijayalakhsmi and D.V.Satyanarayana, respondents in W.A.752/1999, for declaration of the Award No.11/1996, dated 16.08.1996 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, fixing the compensation as per the market value existing as on 30.03.1980, the date of earlier 4(1) notification and deducting 80% of the value towards developmental charges, as illegal and unconstitutional, and further declare that by operation of Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed, and consequently, direct the Land Acquisition Officer to pass award by reviving the land acquisition proceedings, by issuing fresh notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in respect of NTS Nos.2, 20, 23 and 27 of Machavaram village, Vijayawada Urban of an extent of Ac.2.28 cents and to fix the market value existing as on the date of fresh notification with all consequential benefits accrued under the amended Act 68 of 1984. 5. 5. W.P.No.17068/1997 is filed by C.Nagendra and three others, respondents 1 to 4 in W.A.No.753/1999, declaring that 4(1) notifications dated 05.11.1979 and 25.01.1990 as illegal, arbitrary and to pass award for payment of compensation as per 4(1) Notification dated 13.01.1997 and to initiate proceedings under Sec.11 of the Act forthwith and to pass award and pay compensation amount to the petitioners. 6. The General Manager, Secunderabad and Divisional Manager, Vijayawada of South Central Railway filed W.P.32745/1997, calling for the records relating to issuance of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in Government Memo No.967, Irrigation & CAD Department dated 15.10.1996, published in A.P.Gazette Extraordinary Part-I, dated 05.12.1996 as illegal, unconstitutional, inoperative and consequential declaration in G.O.Rt.No.140, Transport R & B (Ports) Department dated 25.01.1990 published in A.P.Gazette Notification dated 22.02.1990 as illegal and inoperative. 7. It is the case of the writ petitioners in W.P.17068/1997 that their lands of an extent of Ac.5.10 cents in NTS No.1, Block No.9, Machavaram village, Vijayawada Urban Mandal, Krishna District are sought to be acquired for construction of quarters for the employees of South Central Railway and advance possession was taken on 17.12.1979, even without issuing 4(1) notification as well as Sec.6 Declaration, which was issued later on, notifying an extent of Ac.22.19 cents, out of which, an award was passed for Ac.3.72 cents in NTS No.28, vide Award No.12/84 dated 13.08.1984, and fresh notification under Sec.4(1) was again issued on 25.01.1990, published on 22.02.1990, but no steps have been taken for passing the award. However, in respect of some lands covered under the said notification, an award No.3/1992 dated 18.04.1992 was passed. Again, another notification dated 13.01.1997 was published, but no award was passed. Hence, they seek payment of compensation as per the third notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act dated 13.01.1997. Thus, the petitioners/land owners filed writ petitions seeking to declare that the land acquisition proceedings were lapsed by virtue of operation of Sec.11A and to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to pass award by reviving the land acquisition proceedings and issue a fresh notification in respect of their lands. The South Central Railway filed the said W.P.32745/1997 to declare the notifications dated 15.10.1996 in G.O.Rt.No.967 and G.O.Rt.No.140, dated 25.01.1990, as illegal and unconstitutional and to pass awards as per the first notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, dated 05.11.1979, published on 31.03.1980. The South Central Railway filed the said W.P.32745/1997 to declare the notifications dated 15.10.1996 in G.O.Rt.No.967 and G.O.Rt.No.140, dated 25.01.1990, as illegal and unconstitutional and to pass awards as per the first notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, dated 05.11.1979, published on 31.03.1980. The learned single Judge framed the following questions for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioners can seek declaration that the notifications dated 31.03.1980, 22.02.1990 and 05.12.1996 are void on account of unreasonable delay in determining and awarding the compensation to the petitioners; 2. Whether it is open to the Government to issue successive notifications; and 3. Whether vesting of lands under Sec.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Government is a bar for seeking declaration that the notifications issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act is void on account of unreasonable delay in determining and awarding the compensation’ 8. On the above questions, the learned single Judge held that the vesting of the land in the Government was already completed and declaring the 4(1) notification as void on account of unreasonable delay is only for the purpose of determining the market value. But it has nothing to do with the vesting of the land in the Government and it does not result in divesting of the land vested in the Government, though the vesting becomes without authority of law as the notification under Sec.4(1) ceases to be in operation. However, since the authority is empowered to issue a fresh notification, the Collector has to take fresh steps to issue a notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act to regularize the vesting of the land in the Government. As regards to the contention of the writ petitioners in W.P.20360/1996 to declare the Award No.11/1996 of the Land Acquisition Officer in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.14.50 ps per sq.yard as ridiculous and contrary to the awards passed in respect of part of the land, awarding compensation at the rate Rs.110/- in 1990 per sq.yard, the learned single Judge held that the 4(1) notifications dated 31.03.1980, 25.01.1990 and 13.01.1997 are void and the petitioners are entitled for compensation according to Sec.4(1) notification to be issued afresh pursuant to the judgment. The Land Acquisition Officer was also directed to take fresh steps to issue notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within three months. The Land Acquisition Officer was also directed to take fresh steps to issue notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act within three months. The writ petitions filed by the Land owners were allowed and the writ petition filed by the Railway was dismissed by the common judgment dated 24.03.1999. 9. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The Divisional Superintendent, South Central Railway, Vijayawada made correspondence with the District Collector and the Sub-Collector, Krishna District for acquisition of the land of an extent of Ac.21.72 cents in Satyanarayanapuram-Machavaram area, Vijayawada vide letters dated 23.12.1976 and 05.03.1977. The Divisional Manager, South Central Railway addressed a letter dated 20.10.1978 to the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada resubmitting the plans and the schedules to finalise the acquisition proposals early in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.21.72 cents for construction of the Railway Staff Quarters. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada addressed a letter dated 14.11.1978 to the Divisional Engineer, Railways, expressing his intention to make a joint inspection of the lands proposed for acquisition on 20.11.1978 and requested the Railways to make all necessary arrangements and to take follow up action for the personal inspection. 10. The Sub Collector, Vijayawada addressed a letter dated 02.01.1979 to the Collector, Krishna about submitting the land acquisition proposals by the requisitioning railway authorities and also about the inspection of the land by the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada personally on 20.11.1978 and recommended that the land involved is in a triangle piece and bounded on all three sides by the railway lines and abutting it there are railway quarters in existence and therefore, it is reasonable to make the extent of the said land available to Railway workers for construction of their housing colony and the claim of the agreement holder is not binding as there was no agreement with the owners and there is no registered sale deed. Thereafter, the owners of the land themselves handed over the advance possession of the land to the Divisional Superintendent, South Central Railway, Vijayawada in writing. 11. The Government approved draft notification and draft declaration proposals in G.O.Rt.No.1175, dated 05.11.1979 and Memo No.3340, dated 05.11.1979 and forwarded the same for publication to the Director of Printing. The Gazette publication was made on 31.03.1980 in respect of Ac.22.19 cents. 11. The Government approved draft notification and draft declaration proposals in G.O.Rt.No.1175, dated 05.11.1979 and Memo No.3340, dated 05.11.1979 and forwarded the same for publication to the Director of Printing. The Gazette publication was made on 31.03.1980 in respect of Ac.22.19 cents. The Railways also pursued the matter with the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities to expedite the matter for finalisation of the land acquisition proceedings. The railways also informed the Sub Collector vide its letter dated 05.02.1983, furnishing the particulars of taking over the advance possession in respect of Ac.7.49 cents from 12 persons on 06.10.1979 and Ac.8.20 cents from six persons on 17.12.1979 and Ac.3.70 cents from 5 persons on 14.03.1980 and total land for which advance possession was already taken is Ac.18.580 and the remaining land of Ac.3.61 cents alone is to be handed over to the railways, for which a clearance certificate from the land ceiling officer is awaited and accordingly, requested the Land Acquisition Officer to expedite the matter. 12. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award No.12/1984, dated 31.08.1984 for an extent of Ac.3.72 cents. The Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada sent revised proposals for an extent of Ac.16.98 cetns on 28.09.1987. In respect of the said land, draft notification was approved and published in A.P.Gazette on 22.02.1990. Draft Declaration was approved and published in A.P.Gazette on 26.03.1990. The Railway Divisional Manager also informed the Sub Collector, vide letter dated 05.11.1984 stating that out of Ac.22.49 cents, which was proposed for acquisition, Ac.2.165 is the Government land and proposed for alienation. Thereafter, Award No.3/92, dated 18.04.1992 was passed for an extent of Ac.3.88.73. The Divisional Superintendent, South Central Railway sent revised proposals, dated 28.09.1993 for an extent of Ac.5.98 cents of Machavaram village. Pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.28236/1995, dated 31.01.1996, directing to pass award, an Award was passed on 10.08.1996 for an extent of Ac.2.27.5 sq.yards and an Award No.5/96 was also passed on 24.07.1996 for an extent of 315 sq.yards. The fresh notification for an extent of Ac.5.98.63 was approved by the Government under G.O.Rt.No.967, Irrigation and CAD Department dated 15.10.1996. 13. The landowners i.e. C.Nagendra and three others whose lands were notified in the notification dated 05.12.1996 for an extent of Ac.5.10 cents in NTS No.1 filed W.P.17068/1997 to pass award and pay compensation amount as per the notification dated 15.10.1996. 13. The landowners i.e. C.Nagendra and three others whose lands were notified in the notification dated 05.12.1996 for an extent of Ac.5.10 cents in NTS No.1 filed W.P.17068/1997 to pass award and pay compensation amount as per the notification dated 15.10.1996. The two writ petitioners i.e. D.Vijayalakshmi and D.V.Satyanarayana, landowners, whose lands were acquired, vide Award No.11/1996, dated 16.08.1996 filed W.P.20360/1996 to issue fresh notification and fix the market value existing as on the date of the fresh notification for their lands for an extent of Ac.2.28 cents. The Railways also filed W.P.32745/1997 to quash the notification in G.O.Rt.967, dated 15.10.1996 with regard to Ac.5.98.63. The Land Acquisition Officer and the Railway Authorities, both filed these four writ appeals, aggrieved by the common order passed in W.P.Nos.20360/1996 and W.P.17068/1997. While admitting the writ appeals, this Court directed to maintain status quo and therefore, no further action has been taken pursuant to the orders of the learned single Judge. 14. The undisputed facts are that 4(1) notification, dispensing with Sec.5A enquiry by invoking the special powers under Sec.17(4) notifying the land for acquisition of an extent of Ac.22.19 cents was approved in G.O.Rt.No.1175, dated 05.11.1979 by the Government and the same was published on 31.03.1980. The advance possession was given by the landowners to the railway authorities prior to the issuance of Sec.4(1) notification. There is no dispute that Collector never took possession of the said land before or after issuance of Sec.4(1) notification. It is also not in dispute that an Award No.12/1984 was passed on 31.08.1984 for an extent of Ac.3.72 cents by the Land Acquisition Officer. Later on, after amendment of the Land Acquisition Act by Act 68 of 1984, the Divisional Superintendent, South Central Railway, sent fresh proposals, vide his letter dated 28.09.1987 to the Land Acquisition Officer to initiate fresh proceedings under Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of remaining extent of Ac.16.98 cents. Thereafter, a fresh notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published in A.P.Gazette on 22.02.1990, but no award has been passed, even after publication of the draft declaration on 26.03.1990. In respect of notification dated 22.02.1990 also, advance possession was given by the landowners to the revenue authorities on 14.03.1980 of an extent of Ac.18.58 cents, without prejudice to their claims for compensation. But the Collector never took possession of the said land under the Act. In respect of notification dated 22.02.1990 also, advance possession was given by the landowners to the revenue authorities on 14.03.1980 of an extent of Ac.18.58 cents, without prejudice to their claims for compensation. But the Collector never took possession of the said land under the Act. The statements obtained by the railway authorities are to the effect that possession delivered on 14.03.1980 has nothing to do with the regular acquisition of the land by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and without prejudice to their claims for compensation. In other words possession was taken de hors the Land Acquisition Act. Within two years of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, no award has been passed. But, however, an Award No.3/1992 was passed on 18.04.1992 in respect of Ac.3.88 cents. Thereafter, the Divisional Superintendent, South Central Railway sent revised proposals for acquisition of Ac.5.98 cents of Machavaram village and the petitioners in W.P.20360/1996 the subject matter of which in W.A.752/1999 filed W.P.28236/1995 to pass award forthwith and to pay compensation in respect of their lands of an extent of Ac.2.28 cents, and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.01.1996, directing the revenue authorities to deposit the amount forthwith to enable the Land Acquisition Officer to pay 80% of the compensation to them within one month from the date of receipt of the said order and also to pass an award within two months thereafter. 15. Award Nos.5 and 11/1996 were passed to the small extents of 315 sq.yards and Ac.2.27.5 cents respectively. Thereafter, fresh notification dated 15.10.1996 for acquisition of Ac.5.98.63 was approved in G.O.Rt.No.967. The petitioners in W.P.20360/1996 wanted payment of compensation by issuing fresh notification in respect of their lands to an extent of Ac.2.28 cents by setting aside the earlier notifications and the awards. The Railway authorities also questioned the issuance of second and third notifications by filing W.P.32745/1997 and sought for a direction to set aside the Sec.4(1) notification issued on 22.02.1990 and 4(1) notification issued in G.O.Rt.No.967, dated 15.10.1996. The said writ petition has been dismissed, against which, no writ appeal has been filed and the same has become final. 16. First notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, published on 31.03.1980 was approved in G.O.Rt.No.1175, dated 05.11.1979 and no award was passed within two years, but the award No.12/1984 in respect of Ac.3.72 cents was passed on 31.08.1984. The said writ petition has been dismissed, against which, no writ appeal has been filed and the same has become final. 16. First notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, published on 31.03.1980 was approved in G.O.Rt.No.1175, dated 05.11.1979 and no award was passed within two years, but the award No.12/1984 in respect of Ac.3.72 cents was passed on 31.08.1984. Though Award No.11/1996, dated 16.08.1996 in respect of Ac.2.27½ cents was passed pursuant to the second notification, dated 22.02.1990 the Land Acquisition Officer held that the earlier 4(1) notification dated 31.03.1980 holds good in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. [1] and took market value as per the first notification after deducting 50% towards developmental charges. 17. Sri T.Ramakrishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for South Central Railway and Union of India as well as the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.752/1999, who are petitioners in W.P.20360/1996 filed W.P.28236/1995 seeking to pass of an Award, which was disposed of on 30.01.1996, directing the railway authorities to deposit 80% of the compensation amount and to pass award within two months, and the said order was questioned in W.A.Nos.503/1996 and 504/1996 by the railways and pursuant to the directions of this Court, Award No.11/1996 was passed taking the market value as on Sec.4(1) Notification dated 05.11.1979 published on 31.03.1980 and therefore, the said award is binding on them. It is further stated that the claimants in this writ appeal also received compensation of Rs.9,40,299/- under Award No.11/1996 and had sought for reference to the Civil Court under Sec.18 of the Act, and therefore, they were not entitled to file W.P.20360/1996, questioning the award No.11/1996, on the ground that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Sec.11A of the Act. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.20360/1996 is barred by doctrine of constructive res judicata under Sec.11 CPC and by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the same is barred under Or.2 Rule-2 CPC as they have failed to raise the said pleas in the earlier writ petition. 18. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.20360/1996 is barred by doctrine of constructive res judicata under Sec.11 CPC and by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the same is barred under Or.2 Rule-2 CPC as they have failed to raise the said pleas in the earlier writ petition. 18. It is further stated that the landowners are entitled for additional compensation under the amended Act 68 of 1984 and under Sec.23 (1A) and (2) of the Act and also interest under Sec.28 of the Act for delay in passing the award and therefore, the first 4(1) notification dated 31.03.1980 cannot be lapsed, and if that be so, the question of issuance of the subsequent notification does not arise. It is further contended that the landowners have been given notices under Sec.9 of the Act at the time of award enquiry in 1984 and in 1992 when Award Nos.12/84 and 3/92 were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the landowners did not take any legal action for passing of award in respect of their lands. It is stated that the learned single Judge erred in relying on certain judgments, which are either inapplicable or overruled, and failed to consider the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of A.P. vs. Mohd.Moinuddin Hussan [2] as well as the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P.(1 supra) where it was held that Sec.11A of the Land Acquisition Act is not applicable in respect of the lands acquired by invoking Sec.17(1) of the Act, as once the land vests in the Government, the Government becomes the owner free from all encumbrances and the landowners are entitled for payment of compensation alone by passing appropriate award, and question of issuance of subsequent notifications does not arise and the original notification holds good for all practical purposes. It is further contended that the writ petitions Nos.20360/1996 and 17068/1997 which are subject matter of these four writ appeals are not maintainable, as the Government of Andhra Pradesh was not impleaded in the writ petitions and their impleadment in the writ appeals will not cure the defect with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against the State. 19. 19. It is further stated that W.P.16060/2002 filed by Dulipala Venkata Satyanarayana to declare that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the compensation payable in respect of the land, admeasuring Ac.1.48 cents, pursuant to the second notification dated 26.03.1990 in view of the pendency of the writ appeals is not maintainable as State of Andhra pradesh was not a party to the said writ petition. The said writ petition was admitted on 27.08.2002 and granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.P.11/2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinae Judge, Vijayawada. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.16060/2002 contends that the petitioner is the owner of Ac.1.48 cents and the entire land is covered by first notification dated 31.03.1980 but no award was passed within two years, the same has been lapsed and fresh notification was issued on 26.03.1990 pursuant to which an Award No.11/1996 was passed on 10.08.1996 after lapse of two years, and therefore, the said notification also gets lapsed and the award passed pursuant to the lapsed notification is nullity and accordingly, seeks a declaration that the reference cannot be decided pursuant to the illegal award. No counters have been filed in the said writ petition on the ground that the relief claimed in the writ petition depends upon the result of the writ appeals. 20. It is stated that the impleadment of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the writ appeals will not cure the defect to overcome the latches on the part of the landowners to question the notifications dated 31.03.1980, 25.01.1990 (published on 27.02.1990) and 05.12.1996 and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, as per the various judgments of the Apex Court. It is stated that the law laid down by the Apex Court is binding on all the Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and as per the judgments of the Apex Court, eminent domain is inherent power of the sovereign State to take private property for public use upon the payment of just compensation, and no complaint can be made on the ground of violation of fundamental and statutory right. It is stated that the delivery of the common judgment in three writ petitions is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is stated that the delivery of the common judgment in three writ petitions is illegal and liable to be set aside. Petitioners in W.P.20630/1996 are estopped from assailing two notifications under Sec.4(1) of the Act dated 31.03.1980 and 25.01.1990, in view of the doctrines of promissory estoppel, waiver, abandonment and acquiescence as they have participated in the Award proceedings Nos.12/1984 dated 31.08.1984 and 3/1992 dated 18.04.1992 and reference was also made to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. 21. It is stated that there is no dispute with regard to delivering advance possession to the Railway Authorities, and therefore, it cannot be said that the said possession is not in accordance with law under the Act. It is further stated that once 4(1) notification was issued by invoking special powers under Sec.17(4) of the Act, though the lands were given in advance possession to the requisition authority, it cannot be said that the lands have not been vested in the Government and that taking possession was not in accordance with the Act. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer is aware about giving advance possession and when once inspection of the land was made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the revenue authorities, the possession shall be deemed to have been taken under the Act, and therefore, question of lapsing the first notification does not arise under Sec.11A of the Act on the ground that awards were not passed within two years. It is stated that the correspondence between the railway authorities and the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the District Collector go to show that the Land Acquisition Officer is well aware about taking of possession by the revenue authorities which was voluntarily given by landowners by giving the declarations and the statements, therefore, it cannot be said that the said possession was not a possession within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that even if possession of the land is delivered to the Government prior to the publication of 4(1) notification, invoking Sec.17 of the Act, the land vests absolutely in the Government as per the said judgments. It is stated that even if possession of the land is delivered to the Government prior to the publication of 4(1) notification, invoking Sec.17 of the Act, the land vests absolutely in the Government as per the said judgments. It is stated that Sec.11A of the Act is only procedural law and as such in the case of Satyendra Prasad (1 supra) the Supreme Court held that where it is a matter of procedure and procedural compliance, it is to be treated directory and not mandatory. It is stated that the relief granted by the learned single Judge to issue a fresh notification was not prayed by any of the writ petitioners, and therefore, the relief granted is erroneous and it cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. It is stated that the third notification dated 05.12.1996 was published after filing of the writ petitions, and therefore, the prayer in the writ petitions have become infructuous and at any rate, the learned single Judge ought to have disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to pass awards pursuant to the third notification dated 05.12.1996. It is stated that the petitioners participated in the award enquiry and compensation pursuant to the award No.11/1996 was also received under protest, but, however, pursuant to their request, the cases were referred under Sec.18 of the Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Sub-Court, Vijayawada has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference in O.P.11/2002. It is stated that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches, more so, when they themselves delivered the advance possession, prior to the issuance of the land acquisition proceedings under Sec.4(1) of the Act. 23. In so far as W.A.1550/2003 filed against the orders in WPMP.23679/2002 in W.P.32745/1997 it is stated that the same was filed under Sec.151 and 152 CPC to correct the mistake but the same is erroneously dismissed by order dated 07.01.2002, directing the railway authorities to file a review petition. The appellants filed WAMP(SR).40565/2008 to convert the W.A.1550/2003 into a review petition and filed another WAMP(SR).11617/2008 to convert the said writ appeal as writ appeal against the common judgment dated 24.03.1999 in W.P.32745/1997, and accordingly, requested to treat the writ appeal as the writ appeal against the main common judgment and review against the main judgment. The appellants filed WAMP(SR).40565/2008 to convert the W.A.1550/2003 into a review petition and filed another WAMP(SR).11617/2008 to convert the said writ appeal as writ appeal against the common judgment dated 24.03.1999 in W.P.32745/1997, and accordingly, requested to treat the writ appeal as the writ appeal against the main common judgment and review against the main judgment. The Standing Counsel for Railways fairly submitted that in fact, the writ petition filed by the Railway Authorities without impleading Union of India is not maintainable, and therefore, the impleadment petition was filed to implead the Union of India was allowed by this Court. 24. On the other hand, Sri M.S.Ramachandrarao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A.753/199 and petitioners in W.P.17068/1997 contends that there are two types of taking over possession by the Collector and under Sec.16 of the Act, the Collector is entitled to take possession after making an Award under Sec.11, and when such possession is taken after passing the award, the land vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances, but whereas, whenever the special powers in case of urgency are invoked, dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.5A, the Collector shall take possession of the land, within three months, as per the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 (A.P.Act No.9 of 1983) and admittedly the Collector did not take any possession of the land after issuance of 4(1) notification under Sec.17(5)(a), and therefore, it cannot be said that possession was taken under the Act and the possession was voluntarily delivered by the owners to the requisition railway authorities, de hors the provisions of the Act. Under Sec.17(5)(b), if the Collector fails to take possession of the land within three months from 4(1) notification, dispensing with Sec.5A enquiry, then the provisions of Sec.5A of the Act shall apply. In the instant case, admittedly, first 4(1) notification was published on 31.03.1980, but possession was taken much prior to the approval of the draft notification i.e. on 17.12.1979. In case of the petitioners in W.P.17068/1997 in respect of Ac.5.10 cents, possession was delivered on 17.12.1979 to the railway authorities. Admittedly, no award was passed pursuant to the 4(1) notification in respect of their land, though an award No.12/84 dated 31.08.1984 was passed in respect of Ac.3.72 cents in respect of others patta land. In case of the petitioners in W.P.17068/1997 in respect of Ac.5.10 cents, possession was delivered on 17.12.1979 to the railway authorities. Admittedly, no award was passed pursuant to the 4(1) notification in respect of their land, though an award No.12/84 dated 31.08.1984 was passed in respect of Ac.3.72 cents in respect of others patta land. After the amendment of the Act 68/1984, the Divisional superintendent, South Central Railway sent fresh proposals, vide letter dated 28.09.1987 to the Land Acquisition Officer to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings including other lands of a total extent of Ac.16.98 cent, and accordingly, Sec.4(1) notification was issued in G.O.Rt.No.140, dated 25.01.1990 and the same was published in the A.P.Gazette on 22.02.1990 and draft declaration vide Govt.Memo No.1370/LAL/89-1, dated 25.01.1990 was issued, but no steps have been taken to pass the award or pay the compensation in respect of their lands though in respect of some other lands, Award No.3/1992 was passed on 18.04.1992, covered by the said 4(1) notification published on 22.02.1990. It is stated that even the said award was not passed within two years. However, the said notification was again cancelled as lapsed and third notification in G.O.Rt.No.967, dated 15.10.1996 was issued which was published in the daily newspaper on 13.01.1997. Accordingly, the said writ petition was filed to direct the Land Acquisition Officer to forthwith initiate proceedings and pass award under Sec.11A of the Act pursuant to Sec.4(1) notification published in daily newspapers on 13.01.1997. 25. It is stated that before Sec.11A was inserted by Act 68 of 1984, there was no legal vesting of title in the Government in the absence of taking over of any possession under Sec.17(1) of the Act. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioners, no award was passed and there was no direction by the Government, directing the Collector to take possession of the land immediately after expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Sec.9(1) of the Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that the land is vested absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. The inspection by the Sub-Collector in November, 1978 is not the inspection of the lands notified in the notification, and therefore, it cannot be said that the said inspection prior to issuance of Sec.4(1) amounts to taking over the possession by the Collector. The inspection by the Sub-Collector in November, 1978 is not the inspection of the lands notified in the notification, and therefore, it cannot be said that the said inspection prior to issuance of Sec.4(1) amounts to taking over the possession by the Collector. It is further stated that in the writ appeal filed by the Railways in W.A.1550/2003, no relief can be granted to them as the judgment in dismissing the writ petition has become final, as no appeal has been filed, and therefore, none of these writ appeals are maintainable as the judgment in the writ petition filed by the Railways has become final which operates as res judica. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the Railways was rightly dismissed by the learned Judge of this Court. Admittedly, no award was passed in respect of the petitioners land, and therefore, dismissal of the writ petition filed by the Railways in W.P.32745/1997 is a conscious decision of the learned single Judge, and accordingly, the application filed by the Railways for rectification of the said judgment was rightly dismissed. It is stated that the writ appeal filed against the dismissal of Sec.151 application to rectify the alleged mistake is not maintainable as the said order is not a judgment, therefore, no appeal is maintainable against the said order. The writ appeal cannot also be converted under the Letters Patent and the High Court cannot exercise similar powers of Supreme Court of India under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. 26. Sri K.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.752/1999 submits that when the part of the judgment of the learned single Judge in dismissing the Railways’ writ petition is not appealed, the whole judgment becomes final and therefore, these writ appeals are not maintainable. The learned counsel also advanced similar contentions about vesting of the land and contended that as the Collector has not taken possession under the directions of the Government, it cannot be said that the land vested in the Government. Pursuant to the first notification, no award was passed within two years, and therefore, the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed and the consequential award proceedings are illegal. Pursuant to the first notification, no award was passed within two years, and therefore, the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed and the consequential award proceedings are illegal. It is further stated that the earlier writ petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.753/1999 i.e. W.P.28236/1995 is only to pass the award, but admittedly, no award was passed within two years and even against the said order of the learned single Judge, Railways filed Writ Appeals Nos.503 and 504 without impleading the owners and obtained interim suspension, on condition of Railways depositing Rs.6 crores, but the said writ appeals were dismissed as withdrawn on 24.12.1997, and therefore, the award passed pursuant to the interim order is not valid in law. But, however, such an award was not passed within the statutory period. It is stated that the railways, have obtained the interim stay of order of the learned single Judge without impleading the owners and got the writ appeals dismissed as withdrawn. It is stated that as admittedly no possession was taken under the Act by the Collector under the directions of the Government, it cannot be said that the land vested in the Government, and therefore, the awards passed after lapse of two years of Sec.4(1) notification are nullity in law. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer who passed Award No.3/1992 granting compensation of Rs.110/- per sq.yard, but erroneously passed the Award No.11/1996, granting Rs.14.50 ps per sq.yard. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer ignored the second notification and passed the award dated 16.08.1996 based on the market value on the first notification, though the Land Acquisition Officer has no powers to decide the legality and validity of the subsequent notifications issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act for determining the compensation. Thus, it is stated that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer without canceling the second notification, based on first notification is illegal and invalid. Even in the writ petition filed by the Railways, the State of A.P. is a party, and therefore, the writ petition filed by the Railways, questioning the second and third notifications is rightly dismissed. Thus, it is stated that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer without canceling the second notification, based on first notification is illegal and invalid. Even in the writ petition filed by the Railways, the State of A.P. is a party, and therefore, the writ petition filed by the Railways, questioning the second and third notifications is rightly dismissed. However, as dismissal of the writ petition has become final, the judgment of the learned single judge becomes operative and the appellants are not entitled to question the same in so far as the relief granted in favour of the landowners’ writ petitions are concerned. It is stated that the receipt of the part of compensation under illegal award is of no significance as the awards are without jurisdiction and illegal and the petitioners are entitled for the payment of the compensation pursuant to the fresh notification to be issued, as per the directions of the leaned single Judge. It is stated that the requisition and acquisition authorities have rightly understood the legal issues about the lapsing of the first notification as award was not passed within two years, so also the second notification, and therefore, the learned single Judge rightly has directed to issue fresh notification for the purpose of determining the compensation. 27. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel for the South Central Railway submits that non-joinder of necessary party which is the State of Andhra Pradesh is not binding on the State, as under Article 300 of Constitution of India, State is necessary party. Second and Third Notifications are questioned belatedly in 1996 and 1997 and by impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2008 in these writ appeals, will not cure the defect of the delay and therefore, the writ petitions are sought to be dismissed by allowing the writ appeals on the ground of delay and latches. The joint inspection of the lands by the Sub-Collector and the Railways before issuance of the Sec.4(1) notification amounts to taking over possession by the Collector in view of the fact that the landowners voluntarily handed over the possession to the railway authorities. The learned counsel submits that the writ petitions filed by the landowners are liable to be dismissed on delay and latches and more so, the awards cannot be questioned in view of doctrines of promissory estoppel, waiver, abandonment and acquiescence. 28. The learned counsel submits that the writ petitions filed by the landowners are liable to be dismissed on delay and latches and more so, the awards cannot be questioned in view of doctrines of promissory estoppel, waiver, abandonment and acquiescence. 28. Before going into the merits of the cases and the said contentions to resolve the controversy, we are of the opinion that it would be profitable to have a look into the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Any land, required by the Government for the public purpose, can be acquired by following due process of law. The State Government delegated its powers and duties to be exercised and discharged under the Land Acquisition Act to the District Collector. The land acquired in respect of the cases on hand is for the purpose of construction of residential quarters to the employees of the South Central Railway, Vijayawada and therefore, the appropriate Government in the instant case is the Central Government. Under Sec.4(1) of the Act, a preliminary notification is to be published in respect of the land required to be acquired in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers and the Collector shall, within 40 days from the date of publication of such notification, cause public notice of substance of such notification to be given at the convenient place of locality, furnishing all particulars, and thereupon, it shall be lawful for any officer, authorized by the Government to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land, and do all other acts which are required or necessary. If there are any damages caused at the time of entry, such damages shall be tendered to such person/owner of the land under Section 5 of the Act. If the special powers, in case of urgency under Sec.17(1), were not invoked by dispensing with the Sec.5A enquiry under Sec.17(4), the persons interested, are entitled to file their objections against the publication of the preliminary notification after causing public notice, within 30 days, from the date of publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, objecting for acquisition of the land, and such objectors are entitled for reasonable opportunity of being heard under Sec.5-A of the Act. Thereupon, if the Government satisfies that any particular land is needed for the public purpose, a declaration shall be made under Sec.6 of the Act to the effect that the land is required for a public purpose. Such declaration shall be published in official gazette and in two daily newspapers and the Collector shall also cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient place in the locality and such declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Thereupon, it is open for the Government to acquire the land. Under Sec.7 of the Act, after declaration, declaring that the land is required for a public purpose, the appropriate Government shall direct the Collector to take order for such acquisition of the land. Thereupon, the Collector is entitled to mark out and measure the land under Sec.8 and issue a public notice of its intention to take possession under Sec.9, calling upon the claims for compensation from the interested persons. After making necessary enquiry under Sec.10 and 11 of the Act, an Award has to be passed under Sec.11 after considering all the objections. As per the amended Sec.11A of the Act, which was inserted by Act.68 of 1984 that such award under Sec.11 shall be made within a period of two yeas from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no such award is made within that period of two years, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The Collector shall give notice of his award to all such persons interested under Sec.12(2) of the Act. When the Collector makes an Award under Sec.11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances under Sec.16 of the Act. Under Sec.17 of the Act, in case of urgency, it is open for the appropriate Government to direct the Collector to take possession of any land needed for public purpose after expiry of 15 days from the publication of the notice under Sec.9(1) of the Act, and thereupon such land shall vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Sec.9(1) notice is required to be given to the persons interested, about the intention of the Government to take possession, after publication of declaration under Sec.6(1) of the Act. Sec.9(1) notice is required to be given to the persons interested, about the intention of the Government to take possession, after publication of declaration under Sec.6(1) of the Act. Under Sec.17(4) of the Act, it is open for the appropriate Government to dispense with enquiry under Sec.5A and direct to make a declaration under Sec.6 at any time after the publication of preliminary notification under Sec.4(1). Whenever the provisions of Sec.17(4) are invoked, dispensing with Sec.5A enquiry, after issuance of the 4(1) notification, it is open for the Collector to take possession of the land within three months from the date of Sec.6(1) declaration. Thus, the procedure for taking possession in normal circumstances after publication of Sec.6(1) declaration, by calling for the objections from the interested persons and conducting enquiry and passing an award and thereupon after taking possession under Sec.16 of the Act, the land vest absolutely in the Government after passing Awards under Sec.11. Whenever the urgency provision is invoked, dispensing with Sec.5A enquiry, by publication of the preliminary notification, directing to publish declaration under Sec.6(1), it is open for the Collector to take possession of the land within three months. Sec.17 of the Act amended by the State of A.P. Act 9 of 1983 reads as follows: Sec.17: Special Powers in the case of Urgency: (1) The case of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government or the District Collector, as the case may be, so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned in Sec.9, sub-section(1), take possession of any land needed for the public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances; (2) …………… (3) ……. (3-A)Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section(3),-- (a) tender payment of eighty per centum of the compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested entitled thereto, and (b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Section 31, sub-section (2), and where the Collector is so prevented, the provisions of Section 31, sub-section (2), (except the second proviso thereto), shall apply as they apply to the payment of compensation under that section. (3-B) The amount paid or deposited under sub-section (3-A) shall be taken into account for determining the amount of compensation required to be tendered under Section 31, and where the amount so paid or deposited exceeds the compensation awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the excess may, unless refunded within three months from the date of the Collector’s award, be recovered as an arrear of land revenue (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of Sub-sec(1) or sub-sec.(2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Sec.5A shall not apply, and, if it does so, direct, a declaration may be made under Sec.6 in respect of land at any time after the date of the publication of the notification under Sec.4 sub-sec.(1); (5) (a) In any case where the State Government have directed under sub-section (4) that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply, the Collector shall take possession of the land within three months thereof. (b) If however the Collector fails to take possession of the land within the aforesaid period of three months, the provisions of Section 5-A shall apply as if there is no such direction that Section 5-A shall not apply, and in all such cases the period of thirty days referred in Section 5-A shall be reckoned from the date of expiration of three months specified in clause (a). Any person interested who has not accepted the award, may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court under Sec.18 of the Act whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Such objection shall be filed within two months from the date of service of the notice from the Collector under Sec.12(2) of the Act. Sec.23 deals with the matters to be considered in determination of compensation by the Court on reference. Sec.24 deals with the matters to be neglected in determining compensation. Under Sec.28, the excess compensation determined by the Court shall bear the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Sec.23 deals with the matters to be considered in determination of compensation by the Court on reference. Sec.24 deals with the matters to be neglected in determining compensation. Under Sec.28, the excess compensation determined by the Court shall bear the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Under Sec.34, the amount payable to the claimants shall bear the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the time of so taking possession until it is paid or deposited for a period of one year and thereafter it shall bear the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. Sec.46 deals with penalty for obstructing acquisition of land. Under Sec.48, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. Once possession is taken, it is not open for the Government to withdraw the land acquisition proceedings. WRIT APPEAL No.1550/2003: 29. The WPMP.23679/2002 was filed under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC to rectify the mistakes said to have crept in the judgment in W.P.32745/1997 and the said WPMP was dismissed on the ground that if the said application is allowed, it amounts to reviewing the judgment, and accordingly, the applications filed in WPMP.23679/2002 for rectification of the judgment as well as WPMP(SR)17313/2003 which was filed to set aside the order dated 07.01.2003 were dismissed on 15.04.2003, while directing to file a review petition. No writ appeal has been filed against the impugned common judgment in WP.32745/1997. The order in WP.32745/1997 was passed on merits and no review petition or writ appeal has been filed against the said order, the application filed by the appellants herein, who are writ petitioners to rectify the operative portions of the common judgment under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC without there being filed any review petition, was rightly dismissed by the learned single judge, and therefore, we do not see any merits in this writ appeal and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. The WAMP(SR).No.40565/2008 filed for conversion of W.A.1550/2003 into review petition and WAMP(SR).No.11617/2008 filed to treat W.A.1550/2003 as appeal against the common judgment in W.P.32745/1997, cannot be accepted. 30. The WAMP(SR).No.40565/2008 filed for conversion of W.A.1550/2003 into review petition and WAMP(SR).No.11617/2008 filed to treat W.A.1550/2003 as appeal against the common judgment in W.P.32745/1997, cannot be accepted. 30. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge considered the contentions of the Railways with regard to alleged illegality in notifying the second and third notifications under Sec.4(1) of the Act, at the instance of the requisition and acquisition authorities, as possession was not taken by the Collector under the Act and no awards were passed within two years from the date of first, second and third notifications, and therefore, the Railways is not entitled for any relief as asked for in W.P.32745/1997 and it was, accordingly, dismissed. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge considered the contention of the Railways that the said writ petition filed by the Railways was erroneously dismissed instead of allowing the same as the 2nd and 3rd notifications were not upheld and the said contentions are rightly rejected on the ground that if the said WPMP filed under Sec.151 CPC is allowed, it amounts to reviewing the judgment in their writ petition. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned single judge has become final and cannot be interfered with in the present writ appeal, which is filed against the order in WPMP filed under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC for the alleged rectification of the mistake. In fact, there was no such mistake committed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition of the Railways. 31. In spite of directing the appellant-Railways to file a review petition, no such review petition has been filed. When once the judgment becomes final, the finality attained by it cannot be set aside in the absence of any writ appeal filed against the said order and also it cannot be said that the railways have mistakenly filed the WPMP to rectify the alleged mistake said to have been committed by the learned single judge in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, the application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC cannot be treated or converted to that of a review petition or a writ appeal. 32. Therefore, the application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC cannot be treated or converted to that of a review petition or a writ appeal. 32. In so far as the legality and validity of the common order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition WP.32745/1997 dated 24.03.1999 is concerned, we are of the opinion that even if the said judgment is a wrong judgment, but still it is binding on the parties till it is set aside, as held by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar [3] and Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India [4]. Any judgment or decree cannot be corrected or modified either by the Executing Court or by the Appellate Court, but it can be corrected by the same Court itself, which passed the said judgment. However, in the instant case, we do not see anything that would have been corrected or rectified by the learned Judge, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. [5]. The Apex Court held that the exercise of power under Sec.152 CPC contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. After passing of the judgment, decree or order, the Court becomes functus officio and thus, not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The corrections contemplated are correcting of only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. After passing a judgment or order on merits, no Court can, under the cover of the sections 151 and 152 CPC, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the judgments in Employer in Relation to Management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. V. Union of India and Anr. [6] and Subal Paul v. Malina Paul and Anr. [7] cited by the learned counsel for the appellant-railway are not applicable to the instant case, as we do not find any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the said application by the learned single Judge. 33. [6] and Subal Paul v. Malina Paul and Anr. [7] cited by the learned counsel for the appellant-railway are not applicable to the instant case, as we do not find any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the said application by the learned single Judge. 33. Therefore, we, accordingly, dismissed the Writ Appeal No.1550/2003 filed against the interlocutory order in WPMP.23679/2002 in W.P.32745/1997 dated 07.01.2003, so also WAMP(SR).Nos.40565/2008 and 11617/2008 are dismissed. WRIT APPEAL Nos.752, 753, 979 and 853 of 1999 The questions that arises for considerations in these appeals are: 1. Whether the possession, voluntarily given prior to the issuance of Sec.4(1) notification to the requisition authority can be treated as a possession taken over by the acquisition authority under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act? 2. Whether the possession taken over by the requisition authority can be treated as a possession taken over by the acquisition authority under the Land Acquisition Act? 3. Whether the judgment delivered in the writ petition filed by the Railways, which attained finality, as no writ appeal is filed against it operates as res judica against the railway and the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the writ appeals filed by them against the other connected writ petitions? 4. Whether the Government is entitled to issue subsequent notifications under Sec.4(1) of the Act on the ground that no awards are passed within two years pursuant to the first 4(1) notification dated 31.03.1980, which was issued invoking urgency powers under Sec.17(1) of the Act? 34. In so far as 1st and 2nd questions, the learned counsel appearing for the Railways submits that Sec.11A of the Act has no application in cases of issuance notification under Sec.4(1) by invoking the urgency provisions under Sec.17(1) of the Act, as the land vest in the Government whenever the possession was taken pursuant to the issuance of notification under Sec.4(1) by invoking the provisions of Sec.17(1) dispensing with Sec.5A enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. (1 supra) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Government of A.P. vs. Mohd.Moinuddin Hussan (2 supra). In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. (1 supra) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Government of A.P. vs. Mohd.Moinuddin Hussan (2 supra). In the case of Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. (1 supra) notification was issued invoking the special powers under Sec.17(1) dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.5A under Sec.17(4) on 29.07.1986 and on expiry of 15 days notice of publication of notice under Sec.9(1), possession of the land was taken, but no award was passed within two years under Sec.11. In those circumstances, the Apex Court relying on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lt.Governor of Himachal Pradesh vs Avinash Sharma [8] held that when the possession of the land is taken under Sec.17(1) the land vests in the Government, and once the land vests in the Government, it cannot revert back to the original owner, whether award is passed or not and whether 80% of the estimated compensation was paid or not. The said judgment of the Apex Court was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of A.P. vs. Mohd.Moinuddin Hussan (2 supra). 35. The learned counsel appearing for the Railways also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Star Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana in support of his contention that once the award is passed under Sec.11, the land vest in the Government and the landowners are not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings. 36. There cannot be any dispute with regard to contention that after publication of 4(1) notification and Sec.6 declaration, Government directs the Collector to take order for acquisition of land and then award is to be passed within two years under Sec.11 and after the award, the Collector takes possession of the land and then only the land absolutely vest in the Government free from all encumbrances under Sec.16 of the Act. There is another mode of taking over the possession wherever special powers under Sec.17 are invoked while issuing Sec.4(1) notification. There is another mode of taking over the possession wherever special powers under Sec.17 are invoked while issuing Sec.4(1) notification. In case of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government directs the Collector to take possession even before passing of the award after expiration of 15 days from the date of publication of notice under Sec.9(1), then the Collector is entitled to take possession of the land needed for the public purpose and the said land thereupon vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Even in the case of urgency also where special powers are invoked, dispensing with Sec.5A enquiry, directing to make a declaration under Sec.6, the possession is required to be taken only after causing public notice in Sec.9(1). Under Sec.9(1) notice is required to be issued about the intention of the Government to take possession of the land to all the interested persons to claim compensation. 37. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the first method of taking over possession is not applicable. The second method of taking possession is only applicable as the urgency powers are invoked under Sec.17(1), dispensing with Sec.5A enquiry under Sec.17(4) for declaration of notification under Sec.6 and even long before causing of public notice under Sec.9(1) and even before publication of notification under Sec.4(1) the possession was taken over by the requisition authority. The possession was not taken by the Collector at any time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land vests in the Government either under Sec.16(1) of the Act or under Sec.17(1) of the Act, as the possession was not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 38. In the case of Jetmull Bhojraj vs. State of Bihar [9] the Supreme Court held that the Government becomes the owner of the lands notified for acquisition only when the Collector takes possession of those lands either under Sec.16 or under Sec.17(1). Both these provisions provide that when the Collector takes possession under those provisions, the lands notified for acquisition shall vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Until and unless possession is taken under either of those provisions, the lands notified for acquisition do not vest in the Government. 39. In the instant case, admittedly, possession was not taken over by the Collector after expiry of 15 days after causing the notice under Sec.9(1) of the Act. Until and unless possession is taken under either of those provisions, the lands notified for acquisition do not vest in the Government. 39. In the instant case, admittedly, possession was not taken over by the Collector after expiry of 15 days after causing the notice under Sec.9(1) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the possession was not taken over by the Collector even before issuance of Sec.4(1) notification to treat it as a possession taken after expiry of 15 days from publication of the notice under Sec.9(1), as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Lt.Governor of Himachal Pradesh vs Avinash Sharma (5 supra). 40. The Collector cannot take possession of the land unless the Government directs him to do so. Even when the Government directs the Collector to take possession, he cannot do so until expiry of 15 days after publication of notice under Sec.9(1). In these cases, the Government had not given to the collector any direction under Sec.17(1), as there is no material to show that the possession of the lands in question had been taken by the Collector under Sec.17(1) of the Act. When once possession is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the said possession cannot be divested and the Government cannot withdraw a notification also. 41. A learned single Judge of this Court in the case of M.Sowbhagyamamma vs. Land Acquisition Officer [10] held that the possession of the land taken even before the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act by invoking the special powers, having regard to the urgency under Sec.17(1) of the Act cannot be treated that the possession was taken under the Act and that the land vest in the Government. Thus, the case of Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. (1 supra) was held to be not applicable in such cases. 42. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Guddi Malkapur Cooperative Housing Society vs. L.A.O. [11] with regard to passing of the award according to the terms of agreement entered into under Sec.11(2), held that any agreement entered into anterior to issuance of notification cannot be treated as an agreement under Sec.11(2). 43. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision of a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in R.L.Jain Vs. D.D.A [12]. 43. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied on a decision of a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in R.L.Jain Vs. D.D.A [12]. In the said case Sec.4(1) notification was issued on 13.11.1959 and declaration under Sec.6 was published on 11.10.1961. On a question “whether the provisions of Sec.34 of the Act regarding payment of interest would be applicable to a case where the possession has been taken over prior to issuance of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act” the Apex Court made the following observations. After issuance of Sec.4(1) notification, enquiry under Sec.5A is to be conducted and then after making declaration under Sec.6, then the Collector is required to issue notice to the persons interested under Sec.9(1) of the Act, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interested in such land may be made to him. Sec.11 provides for making of an award by the Collector. Sec.16 provides that when a Collector has made an award under Sec.11 may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Thus, the possession can be taken only after making the award under Sec.11. But, however, Sec.17 is an exception to Sec.16 for vesting the land in the Government even before passing of the award. The urgency provision contained in Sec.17 can be invoked and possession can be taken over only after publication of the notification under Sec.9(1) of the Act, which shall itself can be made after the publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) and Sec.6 of the Act. The scheme of the Act does not contemplate taking over of possession prior to the issuance of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act and if possession is taken prior to the said notification, it will be de hors the Act. Paragraph-12 of the said judgment is extracted for the sake of convenience: “The expression “the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited” should not be read in isolation divorced from its context. The words “such possession” and “so taking possession” are important and have to be given meaning in the light of other provisions of the Act. The words “such possession” and “so taking possession” are important and have to be given meaning in the light of other provisions of the Act. “Such compensation” would mean the compensation determined in accordance with other provisions of the Act, namely, Ss.11 and 15 of the Act which by virtue of S.23(1) mean market value of the land on the date of Notification under S.4(1) and other amounts like statutory sum under sub-section (1-A) and solatium under sub-section (2) of S.23. The heading of Part II of the Act is acquisition and there is a sub-heading “Taking Possession” which contains Ss.16 and 17 of the Act. The words “so taking possession” would therefore mean taking possession in accordance with S.16 or 17 of the Act. These are the only two sections in the Act which specifically deal with the subject of taking possession of the acquired land. Clearly the stage for taking possession under the aforesaid provisions would be reached only after publication of the Notification under Ss.4(1) and 9(1) of the Act. If possession is taken prior to the issuance of the Notification under S.4(1) it would not be in accordance with S.16 or 17 and will be without any authority of law and consequently cannot be recognized for the purposes of the Act. For the parity of reasons the words “from the date on which he took possession of the land” occurring in S.28 of the Act would also mean lawful taking of possession in accordance with S.16 or 17 of the Act. The words “so taking possession” can under no circumstances mean such dispossession of the owner of the land which has been done prior to publication of Notification under S.4(1) of the Act which is dehors the provisions of the Act.” Thus, it was held that publication of notification under Sec.4(1) would give legitimacy to the State to take possession of the land under the Act, and any possession otherwise would not be considered to be possession taken under the Act. 44. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall be observed strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions in so far as taking over the possession of the land under the Act. 44. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall be observed strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions in so far as taking over the possession of the land under the Act. In a case where the possession was taken over by some officer of the requisitioning or acquisitioning authority even before the publication of Sec.4(1) notification and Sec.6 declaration and passing of the award, such possession cannot be treated as a possession under Sec.16 and such land cannot be treated as vested in the Government. Similarly, possession taken by the requisitioning or acquisitioning authority without following due procedure prescribed in law, even in respect of cases of urgency, such possession cannot be regularised as that of taken over by the Collector without there being any direction by the Government to take possession, and even if any direction is given by the Government, the possession cannot be taken over unless the expiration of 15 days notice caused under Sec.9(1) of the Act. If the strict rule of taking over the possession is not followed, there will be any amount of causing misuse by the interested officers in collusion with the owners. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, as admittedly the Collector did not take possession in the instant case on the directions of the Government, it cannot be said that the possession was taken under the provisions of the Act, and that the land vest absolutely in the Government under Sec.17(1). Accordingly, we answered the questions 1 and 2 against the appellants and in favour of the landowners. 45. In so far as third question is concerned, in view of the failure to file writ appeal against the judgment in the writ petition filed by the Railways questioning the second and third notifications, the appellants are not entitled to question the said judgment in other connected writ petitions as the judgment in the writ petition has attained finality and the said finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. The finality of the findings recorded in the connected writ petition due to non-filing of appeal, precludes this Court from proceeding with the present writ appeals. Therefore, on this ground also we cannot interfere with the impugned judgment, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Premier Tyres Limited vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [13]. 46. Therefore, on this ground also we cannot interfere with the impugned judgment, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Premier Tyres Limited vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [13]. 46. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prakash vs. Smt.Charan Kaur [14] held that parties to the common proceedings having allowed to become a judgment in one case final, the finality attained to it cannot be questioned in other connected matters as the same is binding on the parties and therefore, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the Railways for which the Land Acquisition Officer and the Government of Andhra Pradesh is also a party and as no appeal has been filed either by the Railways or by the Land Acquisition Officer (Government of Andhra Pradesh), the said dismissal of the writ petition would operate as res judicata under Sec.11 of C.P.C. against the applicants in all these writ appeals. 47. The learned counsel appearing for the landowners also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lonan Kutty vs. Thomman [15]. The relevant paragraph-19 is extracted hereunder: “Respondents did not file any further appeal against the decree passed by the District Court in the appeals arising out of their suit. They filed a second appeal in the High Court only as against the decree passed by the District Court in A.S.66 of 1958, which arose out of the decree passed by the trial Court in the appellant’s suit. Thus, the decision of the District Court rendered in the appeal arising out of the respondents’ suit became final and conclusive. That decision, not having been appealed against, could not be re-opened in the second appeal arising out of the appellant’s suit. The issue whether respondents had the easementary right to the flow of water through the appellant’s land for fishing purposes was directly and substantially in issue in the respondents’ suit. That issue was heard and finally decided by the District Court in a proceeding between the same parties and the decision was rendered before the High Court decided the second appeal. The decision of the District Court was given in an appeal arising out of a suit, which though instituted subsequently, stood finally decided before the High Court disposed of the second appeal. The decision of the District Court was given in an appeal arising out of a suit, which though instituted subsequently, stood finally decided before the High Court disposed of the second appeal. The decision was therefore one in a “former suit” within the meaning of Section 11, Explanation I, Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, the High Court was in error in deciding an issue which was heard and finally decided in a “former suit” and was therefore barred by res judicata.” In view of the aforesaid observations, the judgment delivered in the writ petition filed by the Railways, which attained finality, operates as res judicata in the present writ appeals filed against the same common judgment passed in other connected writ petitions. Accordingly, we answered the third question against the appellants and in favour of the landowners. 48. In so far as fourth question is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Railways contends that the appellants are estopped to question the notification after a long lapse of 16 years and there are latches on the part of the appellants and hence the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed. Admittedly, in 1984 there was an amendment to the Act by Act 68 of 1984. In view of the said amendment, the land acquisition proceedings initiated earlier are lapsed for the aforesaid reasons. As no award was passed within two years from the date of publication of the notification a fresh draft notification was issued on 25.01.1990 and pursuant to the said draft notification Sec.4(1) notification was published on 22.02.1990 and a notice under Sec.9 of the Act was issued to the landowners. However, no award was passed. Again another notification dated 05.12.1996 was issued as the notification dated 22.02.1990 was lapsed. It was published on 13.01.1997 in daily newspapers. However no steps are taken to conduct award enquiry till today. Though possession was taken as long back as on 17.12.1979, till today no award is passed in the case of the landowners in W.P.17068/1997. The Government issued successive notifications under Sec.4(1) on 31.03.1980, 22.02.1990 and 05.12.1996, but no award is passed and no compensation is paid till today to them. Hence, the cause of action is still in continuance till the land is legally acquired and compensation is paid. The delay in passing the award is unjust and unfair. The Government issued successive notifications under Sec.4(1) on 31.03.1980, 22.02.1990 and 05.12.1996, but no award is passed and no compensation is paid till today to them. Hence, the cause of action is still in continuance till the land is legally acquired and compensation is paid. The delay in passing the award is unjust and unfair. There is an unreasonable delay of about 19 years in passing the awards. The delay resulted not only in loss to the landowners but caused prejudice to them in view of the increase in land value especially in urban areas and if the landowners are paid compensation on the basis of Sec.4(1) notification dated 31.03.1980, it would deprive them of a valuable right to the property. The requisitioning railway authorities have taken possession of the property in 1979 and enjoying while depriving the landowners not only the right to enjoy the property but also the amount to which they are entitled by way of compensation under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are latches on the part of the landowners, but on the other hand, there are illegalities and irregularities on the part of the appellants in not following the provisions of the Act with regard to taking over the possession in accordance with Sec.17(1) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches. The learned single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions of the landowners and dismissed the writ petition filed by the Railways. 49. In the present case, as the possession was not taken over by the Collector in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and admittedly, the awards were not passed within two years for any of the notifications, we are of the opinion that none of the notifications survive. The acquisitioning and requisitioning authorities have rightly understood the legal issues with regard to taking over the possession in accordance with law and as awards were not passed, rightly initiated proceedings by issuing notifications one after another on the ground that possession was not taken in accordance with law and awards were not passed, and therefore, it cannot be said that the lands are vested in the Government. 50. 50. When there was no legal acquisition and the awards were not passed within two years, we are of the opinion that the land acquisition proceedings get lapsed under Sec.11 of the Act. We are also conscious that Sec.11A of the Act will have application if possession is taken by the Collector under the directions of the Government when the special powers of urgency under Sec.17(1) and (4) are invoked. As the possession was given and taken over by the requisitioning authority cannot be treated as a possession taken under Sec.17(1) of the Act, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall lapse. Therefore, the learned single Judge having regard to the facts and circumstances, declared the notification issued under Sec.4(1) as void and directed the land acquisitioning authority to take steps to issue fresh notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act within three months and thereafter pass awards within three months, but at the instance of the appellants, the said judgment was not implemented. Accordingly, the fourth question is also answered in favour of the landowners and against the appellants. 51. The judgment in WP.32745/1997 filed by the Railways, against which no writ appeal has been filed, attained finality, and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the common judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.20360/1997 and W.P.17068/97 and accordingly the four writ appeals viz. W.As.752, 753, 979 and 853 of 1999 are dismissed. The Government is directed to issue notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act afresh forthwith and pass awards. The compensation paid to the landowners is liable to be adjusted against the compensation to be paid pursuant to the fresh notification. No order as to costs. WRIT PETITION No.16060/2002 52. For the foregoing observations made in W.As.752, 753, 979 and 853 of 1999, we allow this writ petition and the petitioners are entitled for the same relief, as granted by the learned single Judge in the impugned common judgment. No order as to costs. 53. In the result, W.A.Nos.752, 753, 979 and 853 of 199, and W.A.No.1550 of 2003 are dismissed and W.P.16060 of 2002 is allowed. No order as to costs.