Order 1. This writ petition is a typical example of non-transparancy and callousness in discharging the sacred statutory duties on the part of the respondent-authorities, which compelled the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Right to property is a Constitutional right, as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which, in clear and unequivocal terms, mandates that no citizen of our country shall be deprived of her/his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an ex-proprietary legislation, which authorises and empowers the authorities to acquire the private properties of the citizens without reference to their consent. Therefore, the authorities, functioning under the said legislation are required to adhere to and follow the provisions of the said enactment meticulously and scrupulously. The non-adherence and failure to follow the same and any deviation from the mandatory provisions and procedures stipulated in the statute, would undoubtedly render the entire proceedings invalid and non-est in the eye of law. The controversy in the present writ petition is required to be analysed and assessed in terms of the above said aspects. 3. The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the draft notification dated --.08.2000 and draft declaration dated 13.08.2000 issued by the District Collector, Srikakulam, under the provisions of Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and Award bearing No.34, dated 20.08.2001 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, the 2nd respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. 4. Heard Sri D. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Madhav Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-Agricultural Market Committee, apart from perusing the material available on record. 5. According to the petitioners, petitioners 1 and 2 are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands, admeasuring Ac.3.42 cents in Sy.Nos.33/5 & 6 and Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.No.32/1, situated at Bellupada Village, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District, having purchased the same by way of registered sale deeds dated 17.09.1983, 19.09.1983, 24.10.1983, 11.10.1983 and 6.01.1984. As per the petitioners, they purchased the said properties for establishing industries. As per the petitioners, they purchased the said properties for establishing industries. Earlier in 1994, respondents 1 and 2 pressed into service the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and issued draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for the purpose of Agricultural Market Yard and the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice vide Rc.No..645/96A, dated 18.09.1997 under Section 5-A of the Act and on receipt of the objections of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent vide letter Rc.No.645/98A, dated 8.12.1997, informed the petitioners that their lands were deleted from the acquisition. 6. Earlier the petitioners filed W.P.No.21633 of 2001 before this Court and this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27254 of 2001 on 16.10.2001 directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the subject land. In the said writ petition respondents 1 to 3 therein filed counter, stating that in pursuance of the proposals submitted by the 4th respondent, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official Gazette dated 20.07.2000 and by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with and that declaration under Section 6 was also published in the Gazette on 26.08.2000 and notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Act could not be served in view of non-availability of whereabouts of the petitioners. In the said counter respondents 1 to 3 also stated that since nobody came forward to claim ownership and to file objections in respect of the proposed acquisition, the possession of the land was taken on 30.09.2000 and handed over the same to the 4th respondent on 5.07.2001 and that the Award was also passed vide Award No.34, dated 20.08.2001. In view of the said reasons, W.P.No.21633 of 2001 was dismissed on 13.09.2002, permitting the petitioners to question the notification and the Award, if permissible under law. 7. In the above background, the present writ petition has been filed, assailing the draft notification under Section 4(1), draft declaration under Section 6 and the Award as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. 8. This Court while issuing Rule Nisi, on 9.10.2002 granted order of status quo in W.P.M.P.No.24844 of 2002. Subsequently, on 10.06.2010 this Court passed the following order – “This case presents several peculiarities. 8. This Court while issuing Rule Nisi, on 9.10.2002 granted order of status quo in W.P.M.P.No.24844 of 2002. Subsequently, on 10.06.2010 this Court passed the following order – “This case presents several peculiarities. The petitioners are owners of land in Sy.Nos.33/5 and 33/6 of Bellupada Village Admeasuring Ac.3.42 cents and Ac.0.90 cents of land in Sy.No.32/1. Way back in the year 1998, proposals were initiated for acquiring those lands for the benefit of market yard. The petitioners submitted representations to the effect that they purchased the lands with a specific purpose of establishing industries and that the alternative lands can be acquired for the market yard. A notice dated 18.09.1997 was issued to the petitioners requiring them to be present at the enquiry. The petitioners accordingly appeared and on considering their submissions, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ichapuram, through letter dated 08.12.1997 informed the petitioners that the lands have been deleted from acquisition and proposal for acquiring alternative lands are being made. The record discloses that on 15.06.1999, a list of alternative lands was furnished by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali. The petitioners came to know only in the year 201 that boards were erected on their lands. Initially, W.P.No.21633 of 2001 was filed. It is only through the counter affidavit filed therein, that the petitioners came to know that the land was acquired. This Court permitted the petitioners to challenge those proceedings and the present writ petition is filed therefor. The matter was heard at length. The record was also produced. A perusal of the same disclosed that the proposals for acquiring the lands in Sy.Nos.32/1, 33/5 and 33/6 were once again mooted and the names of the petitioners were clearly mentioned in relevant forms. However, in the notification that was published, name of one Mrs. Nirmala Devi was shown. The basis therefor is not known. The revenue record, which forms part of the present record also discloses that the petitioners alone are recorded as the owners of the land. The District Collector, Srikakulam, is directed to verify the record and inform this Court as to on what basis and at whose instance, the name of Nirmala Devi was shown in the notifications though the petitioners are shown as the owners in the revenue records. The District Collector, Srikakulam, is directed to verify the record and inform this Court as to on what basis and at whose instance, the name of Nirmala Devi was shown in the notifications though the petitioners are shown as the owners in the revenue records. He shall also inform this Court the names of the officials, who are responsible for this, and their particulars, namely, as to where and in what capacity they are working now. The report shall be submitted within two weeks from today.” 9. In pursuance of the above said orders of this Court, the District Collector, Srikakulam vide Rc.No.276/2003/G1, dated 25.07.2010 submitted a report before this Court, narrating various vital aspects, which have direct bearing on the issue involved in the present writ petition. Counter affidavits have been filed, denying the averments made in support of the writ affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action. 10. Submissions/contentions of Sri D. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners:- i) Draft notification, draft declaration and the Award passed by the respondent authorities are highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice. ii) Having intimated to the petitioners about the deletion of their lands from the land acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1994 for the same purpose in pursuance of the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act by upholding their objections, the respondent authorities are not legally justified in again issuing the impugned proceedings. iii) The respondent authorities failed grossly in adhering to the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act as no local publication of Section 4(1) notification was made and there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondent authorities in invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. iv) The respondent authorities, being the agents of the State, while exercising the powers of eminent domain, are legally bound to act fairly and judicially and they cannot act arbitrarily as per their whims and fancies giving a go bye to the established principles of law. iv) The respondent authorities, being the agents of the State, while exercising the powers of eminent domain, are legally bound to act fairly and judicially and they cannot act arbitrarily as per their whims and fancies giving a go bye to the established principles of law. v) The relevant revenue records show that the petitioner-firms are the pattedars and possessors of the said lands and the respondents cannot now show the name of a wrong person as the owner of the land and contend that no one came forward to claim the ownership or to object the land acquisition proceedings. vi) The petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land ever since the date of purchase and the statement of the respondents that they took possession of the property on 30.09.2000 is absolutely false and the authorities cannot take possession of the land without notices. vii) There is a plenty of alternate land in the village as such the acquisition of lands of the petitioners is impermissible. 11. Contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent:- i) The impugned proceedings are in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. ii) After following the due procedure only the 2nd respondent passed the Award bearing No.34, dated 20.08.2001 and the possession was also taken in accordance with law on 30.09.2000. iii) There is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned proceedings as such the impugned proceedings are liable to be upheld. iv) There is no illegality in invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. 12. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, now the questions that emerge for consideration of this Court are – whether the impugned proceedings are sustainable and tenable and whether the same are in conformity with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 13. In the present writ petition, there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the factum of initiation of land acquisition proceedings earlier for the same purpose by the respondent authorities, submission of objections by the petitioners pursuant to the notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 18.09.1997 under Section 5-A of the Act and eventually dropping of further proceedings thereafter. Once again in respect of the same lands the District Collector 1st respondent issued draft notification dated --.08.2000 under Section 4(1) of the Act and dispensed with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter the 1st respondent-District Collector issued a draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 13.08.2000, followed by passing of Award No.34, dated 20.08.2001 without indicating the names of the petitioners in any one of the proceedings and without putting the petitioners on notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act, and preposterously depriving the petitioners of their valuable right under Section 5-A of the Act, which is akin to human right and fundamental right guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. The proposed acquisition is for establishment of market yard and in the considered opinion of this Court the said purpose, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be a purpose which enables or authorises the authorities to press into service the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is not as if the purpose of acquisition in the instant case cannot brook any delay, as such there is absolutely no justification on the part of the authorities in dispensing with such a valuable right. 14. Yet another significant and crucial aspect, which requires mention at this juncture, and which gives rise to any amount of suspicion in the mode and manner in which the entire proceedings went on, is that the Mandal Revenue Officer entered the name of one Smt. Nirmala Devi Gupta in Adangal on 17.04.2000, i.e., just four months before the issuance of draft notification in the month of August 2000. It is significant to note that no plausible and reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the respondents as to why such change of name was effected and the basis for the said action. On the other hand, the respondents in their counter affidavits attempted to justify the said action by offering lame and feeble excuses and explanations. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact that the Adangals contained the names of the petitioners prior to 17.04.2000. On the directions of this Court, the records have been made available before the Court and the same clearly and categorically demonstrate the said fact. 15. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the fact that the Adangals contained the names of the petitioners prior to 17.04.2000. On the directions of this Court, the records have been made available before the Court and the same clearly and categorically demonstrate the said fact. 15. It is also relevant to mention at this juncture that paragraph No.6 of the additional counter affidavit dated 4.08.2010 deposed by the District Collector, Srikakulam, clearly states that the Adangal extract issued on 3.02.2000 clearly shows the names of the petitioners as owners and enjoyers of the land. It is also stated in the said additional counter affidavit that the Adangal extract was rectified on 17.04.2000, inserting the name of one Smt. Nirmala Devi Gupta by the successor Mandal Revenue Officer. But it is not mentioned as to why the Adangal extract was rectified and on what basis it was rectified. 16. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the District Collector, Srikakulam, vide Rc.No.276/2003/G1, dated 25.07.2010 submitted a report to this Court, stating categorically that the Adangal extract issued on 3.02.2000 shows the names of the petitioners as owners and enjoyers of the subject property and that the Adangal extract was rectified on 17.04.2000 by the successor Mandal Revenue Officer. It is further stated in the said report that the award amount pertaining to the schedule land was kept in the revenue deposit vide challan No.51 dated 06.12.2001 as the awardee did not turn up to receive the said amount; and that as and when the land owner produces documentary evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer, the award amount will be drawn and be paid to the concerned as per rules. It is further stated that the then Mandal Revenue Officer Sri U.A. Bhaskara Rao, basing on the sale deeds available in the record might have got the Adangal rectified in favour of Smt. Nirmala Devi Gupta. It is further stated in the said report that no statement of Smt. Nirmala Devi Gupta was recorded and she did not attend enquiry though notices under Section 9(1) and 10 and 9(3) and 10 were published in the manner prescribed. The said report further states that the words in paragraph No.6 in Award No.34 dated 20.08.2001 are pro-forma words. 17. The said report further states that the words in paragraph No.6 in Award No.34 dated 20.08.2001 are pro-forma words. 17. The averments in the additional counter affidavit deposed by the District Collector, and the report submitted by the District Collector pursuant to the orders of this Court manifestly demonstrate the arbitrary and illegal procedure adopted by the respondent authorities. Even though it is the case of the respondents that they took possession of the subject property on 30.09.2000, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the respondent-authorities took possession of the property in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Act by holding panchanama. The record produced before this Court also discloses that the respondent-authorities did not take possession of the property according to law. On the other hand, it is the categorical case of the petitioners that they have been in possession of the property ever since the date of purchase of the subject lands. Even as per the respondents, nobody did not come forward to receive the compensation amount as per the award and the awarded amount is now lying in the revenue deposit. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said averment made by the respondents with regard to taking possession of the property, cannot be sustained. The award in the present case was admittedly passed on 20.08.2001. 18. It is significant to note at this juncture that parliament enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’) and the said legislation came into effect on 01.01.2014 and Section 24(2) of the said Act, which is relevant for the present writ petition reads as under: “Section 24(2) – Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in the case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all the beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” 19. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & anr., v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and ors., (2014 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 41)and Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and anr., ( (2014) 6 SCC 586 ). 20. In Pune Municipal Corporation & anr., v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and ors., (1 supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.11, held as under. “Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, and either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz., (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in Section 4 notification become entitled to compensation under 2013 Act.” 21. In Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and anr., (2 supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.6 to 8 held as under. “6. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said section is required to be extracted. Section 24 of the 2013 Act is as under: “Section 24:– Land acquisition process under Act 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. “6. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the said section is required to be extracted. Section 24 of the 2013 Act is as under: “Section 24:– Land acquisition process under Act 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) – (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in the case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all the beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 commences with a non obstante clause. It is a beneficial provision. In view of this provision, if the physical possession of the land has not been taken by the acquiring authority though the award is passed and if the compensation has not been paid to the landowners or has not been deposited before the appropriate forum, the proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, is deemed to have been lapsed. 7. Keeping the aforesaid provisions in view, we have specifically looked into the assertions made by the appellant and the way it is countered by the respondents. 7. Keeping the aforesaid provisions in view, we have specifically looked into the assertions made by the appellant and the way it is countered by the respondents. In our opinion though the award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, they have not taken the physical possession of the land and have not paid the compensation to the appellant or had deposited the said compensation before an appropriate forum. 8. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act squarely applies to the appellant’s case and the appellant is entitled to relief sought for in their petition.” 22. In the instant case, the authorities passed Award on 20.08.2001 and the amount is right now lying in the revenue deposit and there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the authorities took possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, as such, the impugned proceedings are also liable to be invalidated in view of the language employed in Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, and in view of the above mentioned authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 23. The above narration, without any scintilla of hesitation, drives this Court towards an irresistible conclusion that the impugned proceedings in the present writ petition suffer from multiple infirmities and the mode and manner in which the impugned proceedings went on is highly iniquitous, unreasonable, preposterous, arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the very spirit and object of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the impugned proceedings which culminated in the award bearing No.34, dated 20.08.2001 do not stand for judicial scrutiny. 24. For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred authoritative pronouncements, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities, which culminated in Award No.34, dated 20.08.2001, are hereby set aside. However, it is open for the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings afresh, if the subject lands are still required, in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.