Judgment : 1. In terms of the amended prayer, this writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the notification issued under Section 4(1) of then Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide G.O.Rt.No.284 Irrigation and Power (Projects Wing) dated 06.03.1979 and the subsequent proceedings Rc.No.C/36/79 dated 10.08.2009, including the award proceedings No.B2/1886/09 dated 25.03.2011, issued by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas in Sy.No.597 and Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.598, situated at Hanamkonda Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District within the limits of Warangal Municipal Corporation. The said lands are classified as agricultural lands and as the same are within Warangal urban agglomeration, he, along with his brothers, has filed declarations including the aforesaid lands, under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the ULC Act’). 3. In the year 1979, respondents have notified the aforesaid lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for public purpose, viz., excavation of Kakatiya Canal of Sri Ram Sagar Project. The 2nd respondent issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 16.03.1979, which was published in the A.P. Gazette No.87 Part-I Extraordinary. After initiating the said acquisition proceedings, advance possession was taken on 11.07.1980. However, while passing Award, the 2nd respondent has passed Award bearing No.9/86-87 on 22.09.1986 only in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.598 admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas and no Award was passed in respect of the lands covered by Sy.No.597 admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas. It appears, Award is not passed with regard the aforesaid land on the ground that the same are treated as surplus lands under the ULC Act. 4. Pursuant to the declaration filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the ULC Act, the primary authority has passed orders under Section 8(4) of the said Act on 14.10.1981 declaring that the petitioner is holder of excess land to an extent of 1,03,510 sq. mtrs. However, Government, in exercise of revisional power under Section 34 of the Act set aside the orders passed by the primary authority and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Special Officer and competent authority. Thereafter, further orders are passed on 25.04.1985 declaring that petitioner is holder of surplus land to an extent of 1,03,519 sq. mtrs. mtrs. However, Government, in exercise of revisional power under Section 34 of the Act set aside the orders passed by the primary authority and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Special Officer and competent authority. Thereafter, further orders are passed on 25.04.1985 declaring that petitioner is holder of surplus land to an extent of 1,03,519 sq. mtrs. Petitioner was unsuccessful before the appellate authority as the appeal filed by him was dismissed on 30.09.2000 vice proceedings No.WGL/1469/88. As against the orders of the primary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, petitioner filed W.P.No.5529 of 2011 before this Court and interim orders were passed to maintain status quo as on 18.03.2001. In the meanwhile, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was repealed by Act 59 of 1999 with effect from 22.03.1999; the State of Andhra Pradesh adopted the same with effect from 27.03.2008. As admittedly possession was not taken under the provisions of the ULC Act, in view of the interim orders of this Court, proceedings under the said Act are lapsed. 5. After State of Andhra Pradesh adopted the repealed Act, petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.597 admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas, possession of which was taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and to pay compensation. When respondents have not taken any steps, petitioner filed W.P.No.28520 of 2008 before this Court, wherein interim orders were passed directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. 6. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that when he approached the respondents, after obtaining interim orders in the aforesaid writ petition, he has come to know that respondents have passed Award dated 25.03.2011 vide proceedings No.B2/1886/09 by fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.7,500/-per acre in continuation of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 16.03.1979. Petitioner questioned the acquisition proceedings, including passing of the Award, on the ground that the land was notified about three decades back, i.e. on 16.03.1979 and therefore it is not open to the respondents to pass Award at this stage. It is also stated that the said Award is in violation of the amended Act 68 of 1984. 7. The 2nd respondent has filed counter-affidavit. It is also stated that the said Award is in violation of the amended Act 68 of 1984. 7. The 2nd respondent has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that petitioner was the owner of the land covered by Sy.No.597 admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas and land in Sy.No.598 admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas within the limits of Hanamkonda Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District and they are in the limits of Municipal Corporation of Warangal. It is further stated that though Award is passed with regard to the land admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas covered by Sy.No.598, along with some other lands, vide Award bearing No.9/86-87 on 22.09.1986, in view of the letter addressed by the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Warangal, dated 19.08.1986, vide Lr.No.A5/2085/1986, stating that the said land was declared as surplus under Section 8(4) of the Act, Award is not passed under the Land Acquisition Act for the said extent. In the counter-affidavit, it is categorically admitted that possession of the land in question was not taken under the provisions of the ULC Act and it is further stated that advance possession was taken on 18.05.1979 by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, SRSP. It is the stand of the respondents in the counter-affidavit that land acquisition proceedings will not lapse, as advance possession of the land was taken on 18.05.1979; as such there is no illegality in passing the Award. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that as the petitioner did not approach the respondents, they were under the impression that the said land is surplus land under the ULC Act; as such Award for the said land was not passed. It is stated that after obtaining information from the Government Pleader, Land Acquisition, after repeal of the Act, impugned Award is passed. It is also stated that the provision under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act will not apply to the petitioner inasmuch as advance possession of the land was taken on 16.05.1979; hence the writ petition is devoid of merits and is to be dismissed. 8. Heard Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. 9. 8. Heard Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as under: Having notified the land for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by issuing notification under Section 4(1) on 16.03.1979, it is not open to the respondents to pass Award at this point of time. There is abnormal delay of about three decades in passing the Award after notifying the land. Though the land admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas in Sy.No.597 was notified along with the land admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.598, however, while passing Award, the 2nd respondent has passed Award bearing No.9/86-87 on 22.09.1986 only in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.598 admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas and no Award was passed in respect of the land covered by Sy.No.597 admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas. When, undisputedly, possession of the land was taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, there is no reason or justification for causing abnormal delay in passing Award. The provision under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is inserted by Amending Act 68/84. The very object of the said amendment is to prevent delays in passing Awards after notifying lands; in that view of the matter, all proceedings stand lapsed. Even otherwise, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay, entire proceedings are fit to be quashed, with a direction to the respondents to notify the land in question afresh. The delay of nearly three decades will cause undue hardship to the petitioner and if the same is allowed, it amounts to paying compensation for the valuable land acquired at the market value which was prevailing about 30 years back. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied on the following decisions: R. Kolandaivelu v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu ( (2010) 2 SCC 97 ) Smt. Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and ors. v. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and others ( 2006 (2) SCJ 67 ) Madishetti Bala Ramul (Dead) v. Land Acquisition Officer ( (2007) 9 SCC 650 ) 11. of Tamil Nadu ( (2010) 2 SCC 97 ) Smt. Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and ors. v. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and others ( 2006 (2) SCJ 67 ) Madishetti Bala Ramul (Dead) v. Land Acquisition Officer ( (2007) 9 SCC 650 ) 11. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents, as under: Though the land in question was notified by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for public purpose, viz., excavation of Kakatiya Canal of Sri Ram Sagar Project, but, before passing of the Award, a letter was addressed by the Special Officer under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, stating that the said land was declared as surplus land under Section 8(4) of the Act; in that view of the matter, no Award was passed. Though final orders are passed by the primary authority and appellate authority declaring that the petitioner is surplus landholder under the provisions of the ULC Act, however, petitioner approached this Court and filed writ petition and obtained interim orders and in view of the interim orders of this Court, no further steps were taken. In the meanwhile, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was repealed by Act 59 of 1999 with effect from 22.03.1999; in that view of the matter, in view of the directions of this Court in the subsequent writ petition, Award is passed. As there was some delay on the part of the respondents, petitioner may be granted additional interest on the amount of compensation, instead of quashing the proceedings. As much as advance possession of the land in question was taken, the provision under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act will not apply. 12. In support of his submissions, learned Government Pleader relied on the following decisions: “Ram Chand and others ( (1994) 1 SCC 44 ) Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others ( (1993) 4 SCC 369 ) 13. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the land in question, admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas covered by Sy.No.597 is within the urban agglomeration of Warangal and in Hanamkonda Revenue Village. In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the land in question, admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas covered by Sy.No.597 is within the urban agglomeration of Warangal and in Hanamkonda Revenue Village. The said land was notified as early as in the year 1979, by issuing draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration under Section 6 of the said Act. Consequent to the declaration, Award enquiry also commenced. Though respondents have passed Award with regard to other lands, but, insofar as the land in Sy.No.597 is concerned, Award is not passed basing on the letter addressed by the Special Officer under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, wherein it is stated that the said land is declared as surplus land under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid land was taken possession under the Land Acquisition Act, on 18.05.1979. In spite of the fact that respondents have notified the land in question, by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act and they have taken possession of the said land; respondents failed to pass Award under the Land Acquisition Act. When possession is taken under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, consequent to the notification and declaration under the said Act, there is no reason or justification in not passing Award only on the letter addressed by the Special Officer under the ULC Act. If the said land is a surplus land, while it is open to the respondents to wait till the conclusion of the proceedings under the ULC Act, but, having notified and also taken possession of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, there is no reason for not passing the Award. It is true that order of the Special Officer, under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act, was passed declaring that the petitioner is surplus landholder, in which the land in question is included and the said order is also confirmed by the appellate authority under the ULC Act, but, as against the same, petitioner filed writ petition before this Court and orders of status quo were passed. At that stage, when orders of status quo were passed, no further steps were taken and in the meanwhile ULC Act is repealed by Act 59 of 1999. At that stage, when orders of status quo were passed, no further steps were taken and in the meanwhile ULC Act is repealed by Act 59 of 1999. Even thereafter, no steps have been taken. When the petitioner approached this Court alleging that his representation was not being considered for issuance of fresh notification and when this Court directed the respondents to consider the said representation, the impugned Award came to be passed. It is true that there was no timeframe fixed for passing of the Award prior to introduction of the provision under Section 11-A of the Act, but it is well settled that where there is no timeframe, steps shall be taken within a reasonable time. In this case, there is absolutely no explanation at all for causing abnormal delay of about three decades in not passing the Award having notified the land, which is in urban agglomeration, as early as on 16.03.1979. Further, the market values of agricultural lands which are in urban agglomerations have increased steeply in the last two decades. This Court can take judicial notice of the same while examining the claim of the petitioner. In this case, it is interesting to notice that though the land in question, which is in urban agglomeration, is notified, basing on the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, impugned Award is passed fixing the compensation payable to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.7,500/-per acre and total compensation of Rs.12,000/-is awarded to the extent of Ac.1.24 guntas. 14. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Smt. Bailamma (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is enacted with a view to prevent inordinate delay made by the Land Acquisition Officers in making Award which deprived owners of the enjoyment of the property or to deal with the land whose possession has already been taken delay in making the Award subjected the owner of the land to untold hardship. While referring to the objects of the amended Act 68/1984, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the object behind Section 11-A is that the pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often causes hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic, the scale of compensation offered to them. While referring to the objects of the amended Act 68/1984, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the object behind Section 11-A is that the pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often causes hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic, the scale of compensation offered to them. Further, in the case of R. Kolandaivelu (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the objects behind Section 11-A of the Act and held that the same is introduced to prevent inordinate delay being caused by Land Acquisition Officers in making the Award depriving the landowners of enjoyment of their land or dealing with land whose possession was already taken. Further, in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (3 supra), while examining the issue of additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed for payment of additional interest of 15% p.a. on the compensation fixed from the date of first notification which is lapsed and the subsequent notification issued by the respondents therein. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid three decisions, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, support the case of the petitioner to assail the acquisition proceedings not only on the ground of inordinate delay, but also the unrealistic and improbable attitude of the respondents in passing the Award at this point of time. 15. As contended by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, while it is true that whenever advance possession is taken, the provision under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be made applicable and the acquisition proceedings would not lapse on failing to make Award within the prescribed period, but, it is to be noticed that the scope of delay varies from case to case and each case is to be examined separately. In the case on hand, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 16.03.1979 much prior to introduction of the provision under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The object behind the provision under Section 11-A of the said Act itself is to cut-short abnormal delays in passing Awards by the Land Acquisition Officers. Even without reference to the said provision, it is well settled that if no time is fixed, steps have to be taken within a reasonable time. The object behind the provision under Section 11-A of the said Act itself is to cut-short abnormal delays in passing Awards by the Land Acquisition Officers. Even without reference to the said provision, it is well settled that if no time is fixed, steps have to be taken within a reasonable time. Certainly, in this case, the inordinate delay of about three decades in passing of the Award cannot be countenanced by any stretch of imagination, so as to allow the Award wherein compensation is fixed at Rs.7,500/-per acre basing on the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, on 16.03.1979. For the land which is in urban agglomeration, respondents are not justified in passing Award, awarding meager compensation, that too, with abnormal delay of more than three decades, having regard to the price escalation. 16. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is evidently a fit case to allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to notify the land in question afresh and pass Award by issuing necessary notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 17. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as petitioner was out of possession from 18.05.1979, he is entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession, it is to be noticed that this Court is allowing the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to notify the land in question afresh and pass appropriate Award; as a result, petitioner would be entitled to fixation of compensation basing on the market value that prevails as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the claim of the petitioner to direct the respondents to pay all the statutory benefits from the date of taking possession cannot be accepted. At the same time, it is to be noticed that the petitioner is deprived of the possession of valuable land admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas, from the last more than three decades. Inasmuch as possession of the land in question was taken on 18.05.1979, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 16.03.1979, he is entitled to be compensated for deprivation of possession from 18.05.1979 without passing Award and paying compensation. Inasmuch as possession of the land in question was taken on 18.05.1979, pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 16.03.1979, he is entitled to be compensated for deprivation of possession from 18.05.1979 without passing Award and paying compensation. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that interests of justice would be met by directing the respondents to pay additional compensation of 12 % p.a., on the compensation to be determined by issuing fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (3 supra). As such, respondents shall pay additional compensation of 12 % p.a., from the date of taking possession, i.e. 18.05.1979, till the date of issuing fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions: i) the notification issued under Section 4(1) of then Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide G.O.Rt.No.284 Irrigation and Power (Projects Wing) dated 06.03.1979 and the subsequent proceedings Rc.No.C/36/79 dated 10.08.2009, including the award proceedings No.B2/1886/09 dated 25.03.2011, issued by the respondents, are hereby quashed; ii) respondents are directed to notify the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas in Sy.No.597, situated at Hanamkonda Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, by issuing fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and pass appropriate Award, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order; iii) it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled for additional compensation of 12 % p.a., for the land in question, on the total compensation payable from the date of taking possession till the date of issuing fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner is not entitled to any other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act for the aforesaid period; iv) there shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, WPMP No.30657 of 2011 stands closed.