ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The land of the petitioner admeasuring about Ac. 3.00 in S.No. 143/3-A of Bhagampalle Village, hamlet of Sundupalle Mandal, Cuddapah District was acquired by the respondents in the year 1985 for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 5-12-1985. and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 20-2-1986. An award was passed on 15-3-1986 determining the compensation at Rs. 10,000/- per acre and the total compensation together with the statutory benefits was fixed at Rs. 40,170/-.
2. The 2nd respondent who is the Land Acquisition’ Officer ordered that the compensation shall be paid to the petitioner in 5 annual instalments of Rs. 8,0347- for year. The petitioner was paid two instalments on 3-3-1986 and 3-3-1987. Thereafter he was not paid any amount. He approached the respondent number of times through representations. Since there was no reply, he filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation with interest as per the award dated 15-3-1986.
3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit admitting that the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac. 3.00 was acquired in the year 1985 and the award was passed on 15-3-1986. It is also admitted that the award provided for payment of compensation in 5 instalments and out of them only two instalments were paid. As regards the nonpayment of the balance of the amount the justification pleaded by the respondents is that in the year 1990 they received certain representations to the effect that the petitioner has alienated some plots in favour of third parties under agreements of sale. It was also pleaded that one Mr. Siva Reddy claimed that he is the owner of an extent of Ac. 1.10 cents out of the Ac. 3.00. In view of these objections the respondents claim that they are justified in withholding the payment of balance of compensation to the petitioner.
4. Sri Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award in so far as it provided for payment of the compensation in instalments is contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also his contention that once an award is passed, the land stood vested in the Government free from encumbrances. The respondents have distributed the land to the various beneficiaries, who in turn constructed houses and it is not open to the respondents to deny the compensation on the basis of certain representations said to have been made by third parties.
5. Smt. Nanda R. Rau, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, submits that the Land Acquisition Act does not prohibit the payment of compensation in instalments. She further submits that since the respondents received representations touching upon the title of the petitioner to the acquired land, the amount was withheld so that it can be paid to the proper person.
6. The fact that the land of the petitioner was acquired and that an award was passed on 15-3-1986 is not in dispute and it is a matter of record. The first aspect that needs to be considered as to whether the award dated 15-3-1986 in so far as it provided for instalments is valid and legal.
7. The Land Acquisition Act is a self-contained Code. It provides for the various steps to be taken in the process of acquisition. Passing of award is almost the final stage. The Act contemplates the payment of compensation to the owners of the land at the time of passing of award itself except where there is a dispute as to title, in which case the compensation has to be deposited into the concerned civil court. Passing of award providing for payment of the compensation in instalments is something unknown to law. The principle of common-law that a transaction will be complete only on passing of the consideration is in no way deviated under the Land Acquisition Act. Vesting of the title under Section 16 of the Act would take place on the payment of compensation where there is no dispute or depositing of the same in the court where there is a dispute. If the compensation as a whole or any part thereof remains unpaid or not deposited into the court, it cannot be said that a valid vestiture in the Government takes place. There may be cases where the parties may agree to receive the compensation in instalments. However, such consent should be express and should be evident from the record. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner agreed to receive the compensation in instalments. Therefore the award to the extent it provided for payment of compensation in instalments is contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
8. The second question is as to whether the respondents were justified in withholding the payment of the balance of compensation on the ground that they received claims from certain third parties. It should not be forgotten that before passing the award a notice under Section 9 is issued inviting objections from persons claiming right, title or interest in the land proposed to be acquired. If there are no claims in response to such notice, it shall be presumed that the notified person alone is entitled for compensation in respect of such land. If claims are received in respect of such land, depending on the strength of the same, the Land Acquisition Officer shall be required to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 30. Once an award is passed, without referring the matter to Civil Court, the transaction as between owner and the Government comes to an end. A person who claims any right or interest in respect of such land but fails to put forward the same in response to Section 9 has no say in the matter once the award is passed. The only course open to him is to institute the legal proceedings to recover the proportionate compensation received by the owner, on establishing the title. Once this is the procedure completed (sic.) in law, as well as under the Land Acquisition Act, the entertainment of applications, representations by the respondents from the persons claiming title was not only without any basis but was rather preposterous. The respondents by their acts and omissions have reduced the entire Land Acquisition proceedings to a farce and have exhibited their typical red-tapism even in respect of matters which have assumed finality under the Act.
9. It was not as if on account of the so called claims raised by third parties, the Government was not in a position to distribute the Ac. 3.00 of land acquired from the petitioner to the beneficiaries. It is not in dispute that the entire extent of Ac. 3.00 that was taken from the petitioner was distributed to the beneficiaries and they in turn have constructed houses more than a decade ago. Because a substantial portion of the compensation remained with them, the respondents have resorted to gross misuse of their official position and have defeated the very right of the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act. The Act, provides for payment of interest at 15% for the period during which the compensation remained unpaid.
10. In view of the circumstances, the, Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 24,102/- together with interest at the rate of 15% from 3-3-1987 within one month from the date of receipt of this order.