- (1.)THE petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac. 8. 321/2 cents in Sy. No. 61 and 63 of Kanuru Village of Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District. He got the same in a family partition between himself and his brother, which took place on 27-09-1957, through a registered partition deed.
(2.)THE A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') intended to establish an Automobile Workshop at Kanuru Village, near Vijayawada. At the request of the Corporation, the District Collector, Krishna, the 1st respondent, published notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') in the A. P. Gazette, on 24-04-1995, proposing to acquire about 150 acres of land in various survey numbers, including the land of the petitioner. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was published on 28-04-1995. The notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act were also published in the daily newspapers and in the locality, as required under the Act. Award, as regards the land of the petitioner, was passed on 05-08-2005. The petitioner challenges the award, mainly on the ground that it is contrary to Section 11-A of the Act, and that the entire proceedings lapsed, on account of the failure of the respondents to pass the award within two years, from the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Certain other grounds are also urged.
The respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the claim of the petitioner. They did not dispute the fact that the land of the petitioner was included in the acquisition, and that the award was passed for the land, in the year 2004. They plead that the award in respect of about 116 acres was passed on 23-05-1996 itself, but the one, in respect of the land of the petitioner and certain others, admeasuring Ac. 36. 14 cents could not be passed on account of the interim orders passed in W. P. Nos. 10651, 10652 and 13970 of 1995. It is stated that the writ petitions were dismissed, and the last of the writ appeals, was dismissed only on 17-12-2003, and that the impugned award was passed within two years, from the date of dismissal of the writ appeal. In other words, they seek the benefit under the explanation to Section 11-A of the Act. Respondent No. 3, the beneficiary of acquisition, has also filed counter-affidavit on (he same fines.

(3.)SRI P. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner did not file any writ petition, challenging the acquisition, as regards his land, and therefore, proviso to Section 11-A of the Act operates. He contends that even in the writ petitions mentioned in the counter- affidavit, the stay was restricted to the one of taking possession, and there was no hindrance for the respondents, to pass the award. Learned counsel submits that when the respondents did not feel the interim orders passed in the writ petitions as an obstacle for passing the award, as early as in the year 1986, in respect of the lands which are not covered by the writ petitions, there is no basis for their plea vis-a-vis the lands of the petitioner. He submits that Section 11-A of the Act is enacted in the interest of the beneficiaries, and the benefit cannot be denied without there being proper basis.