ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to withdraw the acquisition proceedings while declaring their inaction in this respect, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioners are the owners of land admeasuring Acs.8-03 cents situated in Sy. No. 213/1 to 10 of Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District. They applied for sanction of a layout to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, which was added as respondent No. 5 to this writ petition as per order dated 23.10.2007 of this Court. On 9.5.2001, respondent No. 5 issued proceedings approving the Block Layout Plan (BLP No. 6 of 2001). Thereafter, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued in the year 2002 (date of the notification is not available on record). Evidently, no further steps were taken to complete the acquisition proceedings.
3. As the acquisition proceedings have got lapsed by operation of law with the non-passing of the award within the stipulated time, the petitioners approached respondent No. 5 to issue approval for final layout. As there was no response from respondent No. 5, certain persons, who are similarly situated as the petitioners, filed Writ Petition No. 4809 of 2006 in this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 13.3.2006, wherein the learned Judge has taken note of the contention advanced on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that proposals for withdrawing the notification under Section 48(1) of the Act were submitted to the Government through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad vide letter dated 22.1.2005 for approval and that the Special Chief Secretary and CCLA has also recommended vide his letter dated 26.7.2005 to the Secretary to the Government, Industries and Commerce (INF) Department for withdrawal of the lands from acquisition and that orders in this regard are awaited from the Government. In view of the said submissions, the learned Judge closed the writ petition, as no further orders are necessary.
4. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that though the proposals for withdrawal of their lands from the acquisition have been pending since 22.1.2005, respondent No. 1 has not given its approval till date and respondent No. 5 is not releasing the final layout plan on the ground that formal notification of withdrawal has not been issued by respondent No. 1.
5. This writ petition initially came up on 6.8.2007 and has undergone several adjournments since then. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 5 was impleaded on 23.10.2007 and on 30.10.2007 the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5 has taken time for filing counter-affidavit, but so far, no counter-affidavit has been filed.
6. A perusal of letter dated 22.1.2005 submitted by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam to the Secretary to the Government, Industries and Commerce (INF) Department, A.P., discloses that in order to establish a special economic zone to integrate the same with Gangavaram Port, the State Government proposed to acquire Ac.200-00 of land adjacent to the proposed port. It further shows that as per the provisions of the Act, an award ought to have been passed before 9.1.2005 and a sum of Rs. 17.33 crores was to be deposited for that purpose; that in his letter dated 29.11.2004, Principal Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce informed that Transport, Roads and Buildings Department has conveyed that the Chairman and Managing Director, Gangavaram Port, is not interested in acquisition of the lands and that the Government had given option to the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (for short, 'the APIIC) to take an appropriate view on the acquisition of the said land. It is further mentioned in the said letter that the APIIC felt that acquiring land for Free Trade Zone is not economical due to the gestation involved and requested that the requisition made by it for acquisition of Acs.216.15 cents of patta land and alienation of Acs. 13.17 cents of Government land at Dibbapalem Village adjacent to Gangavaram Port as a component to Andhra Pradesh Special Economic Zone may be treated as withdrawn. The letter mentions the various survey numbers and the extents they are covered by the proposed acquisition and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, requested respondent No. 1 to approve the proposals to withdraw the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act. None of the respondents have disputed that the lands of the petitioners are covered by the land acquisition proposals and on account of pendency of these proposals, respondent No. 5 has not been releasing the approval of the final layout. Despite the fact that as far back as 13.3.2006, an unequivocal representation was made before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4809 of 2006 that approval for withdrawal of the lands from the proposed acquisition already sent by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, is awaited from respondent No. 1, till now no orders have been passed. On the Collector's own showing in his abovementioned letter, award ought to have been passed before 9.1.2005.
7. Under Section 11A of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the Collector to make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. In view of this mandatory statutory provision and the admitted failure of respondent No. 2 to pass an award, which ought to have been passed before 9.1.2005, the land acquisition proceedings lapsed by operation of law. In all fairness, respondent No. 1 ought to have approved the proposals sent by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, on 22.1.2005 and there is no conceivable reason why respondent No. 1 is sitting tight over the said proposals.
8. It is needless to mention that respondents cannot show indifference to the mandatory statutory provisions, more so, while they deal with the properties of the citizens. They are expected to act with the sensitivity that is required to avoid undue hardship to the citizens. Though the petitioners have obtained BLP in the year 2001, they are denied the benefit of getting the approval of the final layout at least, since the year 2005 only on account of lack of reasonable dispatch on the part of respondent No. 1 in dealing with the request made by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
9. In the abovementioned factual and legal scenario, I have no hesitation to hold that the land acquisition proceedings, which were initiated in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners in Sy. No. 213/1 to 10 have lapsed on 9.1.2005. Respondent No. l is directed to issue necessary proceedings to withdraw the lands of the petitioners from acquisition, within a period of six weeks. Respondent No. 5 shall forthwith consider the application of the petitioners for release of final layout without reference to the acquisition proceedings earlier initiated and which have lapsed.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 21265 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.