JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition is directed against the acquisition proceedings initiated for issuance of notification under Section 4 on 24.8.2000 (P.1) and declaration issued under Section 6 on 22.8.2001 (P.5) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’), which culminated in the announcement of award 25.7.2003. As has been disclosed in para 4 of the written statement, it is conceded position that all necessary steps in the form of consideration of objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, announcement of award and deposit of the compensation with the Land Acquisition Collector, have been taken. There is no procedural or substantive violation of any of the provisions under the Act. It is also admitted that the instant petition has been filed on 3.12.2004, whereas the award was announced on 21.7.2003. It is, thus, obvious that the writ petition has been filed more than one year of the announcement of the award.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that after the announcement of award, no notice to the petitioners, in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act has been given, intimating them that the compensation amount has been deposited with the Collector. According to him an intimation is required to be given to the land owners, who were not present at the time of announcement of award and that such an intimation was mandatory in law. It is claimed that the petitioner was not present at that time.
3. Having heard learned Counsel at some length, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. Firstly, the petitioner has filed this petition after one year of the announcement of the award. It is itself a circumstance warranting dismissal of the petition as no petition after pronouncement of award is maintainable as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Star Wire (India) Ltd v. Slate of Haryana ; Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig and C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan .
4. Moreover, all the necessary steps leading to the announcement of award and vesting of land in the State have been taken. The awarded amount has already been deposited with the Collector.
5. The argument that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is mandatory and should have been issued to the petitioner, does not require any serious consideration because it would not render the acquisition proceedings illegal, particularly at such a belated stage. The matter is not res Integra. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bailammu v. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society, , has held that mere fact of not issuing notice under Section 12(2) of the Act would not invalidate the award or the acquisition proceedings.
6. The aforementioned view is explicit from reading of the following observation in para 25 of the judgment which reads thus:
….However, having regard to the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act, he must give immediate notice to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the sward is made. Thus, viewed, there can be no doubt that after the award is approved the same becomes an offer to be made to the persons interested, and this can be done by either giving notice to the persons interested of the date on which he may orally pronounce the award, or by giving written notice of the award to the persons interested. The question of limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act has to be determined by reference to the date on which the award was either pronounced before the parties who are present, or the date of the receipt of notice of the award by those not present. The mere fact that the Collector did not pronounce the award after notice in the presence of the parties interested will not Invalidate the award, though it may have a bearing on the question of limitation in the matter of seeking a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act….
7. It is thus, obvious that issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is not mandatory and it would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings or the award. Therefore, argument raised is hereby rejected.
8. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
9. In view of the fact that since we are dismissing the petition, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order on the Civil Miscellaneous Application. No. 4237 of 2008 seeking stay regarding dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question.