Judgment : The petitioner is the owner of Acs. 3.51 cents of land in survey No.156/3 of Kogileru Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District. It is stated that over an extent of Ac.0.26 cents of land, some of the villagers, particularly from Basavaraju Kandriga Village have constructed huts. Complaining that the authorities of the Revenue Department are proposing to dispossess him from the rest of the land, the petitioner filed O.S.No.467 of 1993 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Punganur. He has also filed I.A.No.1514 of 1993 for temporary injunction. The respondents are said to have filed a counter in the I.A. stating that Ac.0.26 cents of land of the petitioner is already under the occupation of landless poor and that they do not intend to take possession of any further extent and that I.A. was ordered on 15.07.1994. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of the suit, the respondents made a proposal to the effect that the petitioner should vacate the land in survey No.175/2B and that he should not raise any objection for Ac.0.26 cents of land in survey No.156/3 and that in such an event, they do not proceed against the remaining extent of land in survey No.156/3. The petitioner states that he agreed for those conditions and that an award to that effect was passed in the Lok Adalat on 15.06.2002. 2. This writ petition is filed alleging that contrary to the stand taken by them way back in the year 1993 in I.A.No.1514 of 1993, the respondents initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in respect of Ac.0.80 cents of land in survey No.156/3 by publishing a notification under Section 4(1) on 07.03.1996 and a declaration under Section 6 simultaneously. On further verification, the petitioner is said to have come to know that an award was also passed on 03.03.1997. The petitioner submits that various steps taken by the respondents are contrary to the representation made by them in O.S.No.467 of 1993 and that the procedure prescribed by law was also not followed. 3. Respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the extent of Ac.0.80 cents of land, which is acquired from the petitioner is different from the property mentioned in the consent decree/award passed by the Lok Adalat. 3. Respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the extent of Ac.0.80 cents of land, which is acquired from the petitioner is different from the property mentioned in the consent decree/award passed by the Lok Adalat. It is also stated that possession of the notified land was taken and that an award was also passed. 4. The writ petition was dismissed on reporting no instructions on 04.06.2007. Thereafter, the writ petition was restored to file on 25.03.2011. 5. Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initiated proceedings in the year 1993 by approaching the Civil Court feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction on 15.07.1994. He contends that the Lok Adalat passed a consent decree on 15.06.2002 to the effect that the petitioner shall leave Ac. 0.26 cents of land in survey No.156/3 without claiming any compensation and that the respondents in turn shall not proceed against any other extent. Learned senior counsel submits that the impugned proceedings were initiated when the suit was pending and the respondents are guilty of misleading the trial Court and suppressing the relevant facts. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on the other hand submits that the subject matter of the suit on the one hand, and the land covered by the proceedings under the Act on the other hand, are different from each other. It is stated that the petitioner himself made a statement to the effect that he has no objection for acquisition of Ac.0.80 cents of land. Other grounds are also urged. 7. It is prerogative of the State to invoke its power of eminent domain to acquire the property of any citizen for public purpose. As long as the proceedings are in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law, this Court does not interfere. 8. If the proceedings that were initiated by the respondents were unrelated to the proceedings before the Civil Court, this Court would have hesitated to consider the matter on merits, once the award was passed. The record, however, discloses that the petitioner approached the Civil Court way back in the year 1993 apprehending action on the part of the respondents and obtained an order of temporary injunction. The record, however, discloses that the petitioner approached the Civil Court way back in the year 1993 apprehending action on the part of the respondents and obtained an order of temporary injunction. A perusal of the order in the I.A. discloses that the respondents made a categorical statement to the effect that they do not intend to give pattas or proceed against the land except Ac.0.26 cents, which is already in the possession of the beneficiaries. The trial Court made the following observation. “These respondents are not going to grant any pattas as already some of the pattas were granted in survey No.156/3 to several persons. The respondents are living in the suit property with the permission of the petitioner. The petitioner has no cause of action against the Government. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.” 9. The respondents stated that they are not going to grant any pattas at present. In case, the respondents felt that any more land in survey No.156/3 is needed for public purpose, they ought to have apprised the Civil Court of the same and would have taken necessary steps in accordance with law. No such steps were taken. Being under the impression that the respondents are sticking to their stand, the petitioner came forward with a proposal to forego Ac.0.26 cents of land in survey No.156/3 and to vacate land in survey No.175/2B. At least when this proposal was mooted, the respondents could have informed the Court that the proceedings under the Act were already initiated. The Lok Adalat recorded the consent of the respondents also and passed an award which reads: “The plaintiff has agreed to give away the below mentioned schedule property to the defendants 3 to 14 as follows; and the defendants 3 to 14 agreed to accept the below mentioned schedule property and also agreed not to interfere with the remaining schedule property. SCHEDULE Chittoor District, Punganur Sub-Dist., Peddapanjani Mandal Kogileru Revenue Village, Basavaraju Kandriga paiki; S.No.156/3 B-ac.0.80 cents paiki 0.26 cents. Bounded by: East: Land of plff., and tamarind tree South & West: Land of plff. North: House of plff. Within these boundaries East West: 115 feet on Northern side, East West: 113 feets on southern side North South: 87 feets on Easter side North South: 111 feets on western side. 10. No mention was made about the proceedings that were initiated in the year 1997. North: House of plff. Within these boundaries East West: 115 feet on Northern side, East West: 113 feets on southern side North South: 87 feets on Easter side North South: 111 feets on western side. 10. No mention was made about the proceedings that were initiated in the year 1997. The whole episode discloses that the respondents kept the petitioner in total dark of the proceedings under the Act, particularly, when they have taken place during the pendency of the suit. Further, the proceedings run contrary to the stand taken by them in the I.A. and the ultimate consent award passed by the Lok Adalat. The State, which is supposed to be a lawmaker cannot resort to breaking the law. The proceedings cannot be sustained. If any additional property is needed from the petitioner in the teeth of the stand taken by the respondents before the Lok Adalat, necessary amendment ought to have been sought. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.