Common Order
W.P.No.19328 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.12/2017 in Rc.No.72/2006/RI-I, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.31.13 cents in Block 5 covered by Sy. Nos.9/1A, 1B, 9/2A to 2D, 9/3, 9/4A to 4C, 9/5, 6, 7, 9/8A to 8D, 9/9A to 9E, 9/10A, 10B, 9/11, 12, 9/13A, 13B, 9/14A, 14B, 10, 12/1 to 10, 15, 17 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19329 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.15/2017 in Rc.No.135/2017/A, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.44.68 cents in Block 10 covered by Sy. Nos.76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 85 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19331 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.08/2017 in Rc.No.175/2006/RI-III, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.31.64 cents in Block 7 covered by Sy. Nos.31, 32, 33 and 34 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19332 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.11/2017 in Rc.No.56/2006/RI-I, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.49.87 cents in Block 1 covered by Sy. Nos.2/1 to 27, 3/1 to 15, 4/2A to 2G, 5/1, 2, 6/1A to 10, 6/2, 3, 4A, 4B, 7/1, 8/1, 3 to 66, 48/1A to 1G, 48/2A to 2G, 48/3, 48/4, 49/1, 49/2A to 2F, 49/3A to 3D, 49/4A, 4B, 49/5A, 5B, 49/6A to 6C, 49/7A to 7D, 49/8A to 8C, 49/9, 49/10A to 10G of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19346 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.14/2017 in Rc.No.134/2017/JA, dated 20.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.43.80 cents in Block 12 covered by Sy. Nos.11, 13, 14, 24, 29, 30, 36, 54 and 56 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19348 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.10/2017 in Rc.No.70/2006/RI-III, dated 19.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.38.32 cents in Block 9 covered by Sy. Nos.64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74 and 75 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossessthe petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19350 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.3/2018 in Rc.No.135/2017/A, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.29.71 cents in Block 10 covered by Sy. Nos.84 and 85 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19352 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.5/2017 in Rc.No.58/2006/RI-II, dated 14.09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.24.66 cents in Block 2 covered by Sy. Nos.50, 52, 53 and 55 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19353 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.7/2017 in Rc.No.57/2006/RI-II, dated .09.2017 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.31.43 cents in Block 4 covered by Sy. Nos.43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 57 and 58 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19354 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.5/2018 in Rc.No.134/2017/JA, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.26.70 cents in Block 12 covered by Sy. Nos.98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 108, 109, 114 and 115 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.19725 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.02/2018 in Rc.No.74/2006/RI-III, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.15.57 cents in Block 8 covered by Sy. Nos.91, 93 and 95 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District.
W.P.No.16592 of 2025
This writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.04/2018 in Rc.No.132/2017/B, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.45.52 cents in Block 11 covered by Sy. Nos.88, 89, 90, 92, 96 and 97 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent and consequent high handed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District as mentioned in Table-A of the writ affidavit without payment of just and fair compensation and R&R benefits.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
3. (a) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in these batch of cases submits that the petitioners herein are owning and having rights and interest in various extents of agricultural lands among other lands acquired from their ancestors in different survey numbers of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District as detailed in Table-A as under:
(b) While so, the government of Andhra Pradesh, in view of setting up of an Integrated Special Economic Zone in Atchuthapuram and Rambilli Mandals near Visakhapatnam city, covering an extent of 9200 Acres from various villages forming part of SEZ, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) acquired non-cultivable lands from farmers under the Land Acquisition Act in phases. After paying compensation, APIIC took possession and allotted 4600 Acres to various companies while the remaining 4323 Acres remained unallotted, lying barren and uncultivated.
(c) Initially the lands of the petitioners were not included in the notified SEZ area. Nevertheless, in November 2005, the 6th respondent made requisition for acquisition of land in an extent of Ac.417.50 cents in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal for expansion of Integrated Special Economic Zone. Further the government proposed to acquire the lands including the subject lands of the petitioners and notified the same u/s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further u/s.6 of the said Act, 1894 have been declared and published in the A.P. Gazette. Aggrieved by this, certain farmers of Gorapudi village filed W.P.No.10328 of 2008 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the proposed acquisition in respect of the lands notified in Sy. Nos.2 to 83 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District, measuring an extent of Ac.416.11 cents and obtained status quo orders by way of interim order dated 02.05.2008. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2017 directing the respondents therein to make award keeping in view the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), in particular Section 24(1)(a) of the Act 30 of 2013 and the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order.
(d) Further, another writ petition No.16744 of 2008 was also filed before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the lands notified in Sy.Nos.84 to 115 which was disposed of vide common order dated 07.06.2017 directing the respondents therein to conduct enquiry u/s.5A of the Act and communicate the decision taken to the petitioners therein. Further, W.A.No.727 of 2018 was preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated 21.06.2017 and interim order dated 20.08.2018 has been granted by this Hon’ble Court suspending all further proceedings in relation to the proposed acquisition which was extended from time to time. But it has to be noted that during the time of granting the said interim order dated 20.08.2018, the respondent authorities therein have not brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court nor stated anything on record regarding passing of the impugned award herein in the intervening period between after passing of the order in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated 21.06.2017 and before granting the interim order in W.A.No.727 of 2018 dated 20.08.2018.
(e) To the utter surprise, shock and dismay of the petitioners herein, it was learnt that as per the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.06.2017 in W.P.No.10328 of 2018, the 5th respondent passed in toto 12 awards with respect to the total extent of land of Ac.417.50 cents in Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District divided into 12 blocks from 1 to 12. Particularly, the 5th respondent passed Award No.04 of 2018 dated 10.04.2018 (impugned award) in the land acquisition proceedings vide Rc.No.132/2017/B, dated 10.04.2018 (impugned proceedings) with respect to the subject lands in a total extent of Ac.45.52 cents in Block 11 covered by Sy.Nos.88, 89, 90, 92, 96 and 97 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The copy of the said impugned award has been obtained through RTI application dated 01.03.2025 upon which the petitioners gained knowledge of the award being passed by the respondents for acquisition of the subject lands and the said W.A.No.727 of 2018 was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25.11.2019.
(f) In the above said circumstances, the petitioners made a requisition to the 4th respondent dated 02.06.2025 bringing to the notice of the said respondents the position of the farmers, land owners and affected persons and contraventions of law with regard to the land acquisition proceedings and thereby they requested inter alia immediate intervention to stop acquisition process until just and fair compensation is determined and reassessed by enhancing the compensation amount to minimum of Rs.50,00,000/- (fifty lakhs) per acre in line with prevailing market rate and loss of livelihood. Further several requests have been made to the respondent authorities. However, the said requisition dated 02.06.2025 submitted by the farmers of Gorapudi village and all the requests fell in deaf ears without any consideration.
(g) The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned award dated 10.04.2018 was passed by the 5th respondent in complete contravention of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and rules framed there under. No notices have been served on the petitioners to comply with the mandatory requirement and procedure contemplated u/s.21 and 22 of the Act before passing the above said impugned award. There is no proof of service of notice to the petitioners. But it is further evident from the impugned award wherein at every item under the apportionment segment of the impugned award, it is noted that “no claims have been received during award enquiry. There is no possibility of ascertaining for deciding the names of the persons entitled for compensation.” This is the common case with all the affected persons which raises serious doubts regarding the manner and veracity of the impugned land acquisition proceedings and passing of the impugned award. Neither notice of the impugned award nor a copy of the impugned award is given to the petitioners by the respondents.
(h) Under the impugned award, the market value of the land was mechanically fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre which was moreover a basic value as on 01.01.2014 for determining the compensation. The said value has been determined by the 5th respondent by merely collecting the data from the local Sub-Registrar’s office regarding sale transactions in the vicinity during the three years preceding the notification u/s.4(1) of the Act i.e., 2011-13. Hence, the same is contrary to Secs.26, 27, 28 and 30 of the Act, 2013. They ought to have determined the market value basing upon the values prevailing as on the date of passing of the award.
(i) The respondents applied the multiplier of 1.25 to the market value for rural areas. But as per the Central Government Notification vide S.O.425(E) dated 09.02.2016, the correct multiplier is 2.0 for rural areas in Andhra Pradesh. Under the Schedule of the Act, 2013 also, compensation for land acquired in rural areas is calculated by multiplying the market value of the land by a factor of one to two. As per Rule 17 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Compensation, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Development Plan) Rules 2015 (“the rules”), it is provided that “in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied as per column no.3 of serial no.2 of the First Schedule read with sub-section (2) section 30 of the Act shall be 2.00 (two)”. In addition to the market value, a solatium (additional compensation) of 100% of the market value is also provided. Hence the application of a lower multiplier is contrary to law and adversely affects the entitlement of the petitioners to fair compensation.
(j) The petitioners came to know that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.160 of Industries and Commerce (Infra) Department, dated 13.11.2017 at the request of APIIC to issue orders for payment of Rs.20 lakhs per acre excluding tress and structure value as recommended by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and thereby the government approved the proposal and accorded permission to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam for payment of compensation of Rs.20 lakhs per acre (including solatium and additional market value) excluding the value of trees & structures as per Sec.24(a) of New L.A. Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) towards the acquisition of patta lands over an extent of 1143.30 Acres (extent notified: 2279.05 acres – Award passed: 1,135.75 acres) in the (6) villages of Rambilli and Atchuthapuram Mandals of Visakhapatnam District including the subject Gorapudi Village for Atchuthapuram Cluster of Visakhapatnam-Chennai Industrial Corridor (VCIC) subject to the interalia condition that the land losers are not entitled to ask for a reference to Land Acquisition and R&R Authority u/s.64 of the A.P. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and R&R Act, 2013.
(k) Further, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam was directed to follow the procedure stipulated in Rule 28(A) of the A.P. State Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Rules, 2014 while paying the compensation. Neither the petitioners nor the other villagers have been approached by the respondent authorities for determination of the alleged consent amount of Rs.20 lakhs per acre. It is much lower compared to the compensation determined on the actual market value prevailing as on 13.11.2017 under the provisions of the Act, 2013. The said alleged consent amount was also fixed unilaterally by the respondent authorities concerned. The basic market value alone as on 01.02.2025 is around Rs.23,00,000/- to Rs.26,62,000/- per acre in the said village, even though there had been deflation and freezing of the land values in the village. In reality, the market value of land in Gorapudi village exceeds to Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. The respondent authorities ought to have determined the amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners as per the prevailing market value of the land in Gorapudi village and the surrounding vicinity/villages where there have been free market transactions taking place.
(l) The respondents have further violated the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Act by failing to issue a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for the petitioners and by failing to provide any infrastructural amenities or alternative resettlement arrangements. It is the case of the petitioners that there are multiple displacements. Under the LARR Act, 2013, several critical provisions ensure not just compensation but also comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement of affected persons. The respondent authorities utterly failed in determining just and fair compensation under the Act, 2013. For generations, the families of the petitioners have been residing in homes built on subject lands and sustaining themselves through agricultural activities cultivating the subject lands by growing essential crops such as paddy, sugarcane, groundnut, vegetables and also maintain coconut plantations. Their families are entirely dependent on agricultural income generated from these lands for their livelihood and survival. In addition to farming, they rear cattle on these lands, which forms a critical part of their subsistence economy. However, the respondent authorities are threatening to forcibly dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands without fairly determining or paying fair and just compensation in accordance with law and without providing the mandatory rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) entitlements as required under the Act, 2013.
4. (a) On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents relying upon the counter of the 5th respondent submits that the present writ petition was filed questioning the Award No.04/2018 in Rc.No.132/2017/B, dated 10.04.2018 with respect to the land in a total extent of Ac.45.52 cents in Block-11 covered by Sy.Nos.88, 89, 90, 92, 96 and 97 of Gorapudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District passed by the 5th respondent. He submits that some of the petitioners filed W.A.No.727 of 2018 against the interim order in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated 21.06.2017. However the said writ appeal was ultimately dismissed for non prosecution on 25.11.2019. The petitioners have now approached this Hon’ble Court once again by filing the present writ petition raising identical issues arising out of the same acquisition proceedings and attributing the previous lapse to the alleged negligence of their counsel. Such a plea is wholly unsustainable and devoid of merit and this writ petition suffers from gross delay and latches.
(b) Coming to the merits of the case, the necessary Preliminary Valuation (P.V.) proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam proposing a rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre in accordance with section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 and also seeking permission to pass the Award. The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings dated 10.08.2017 approved the proposed rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for the lands in question and directed that further action is to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The total compensation determined under the Act, 2013 was worked as under.
| Rate as per P.V. Rs. Ps. | Amount of compensation after multiplication factor i.e. 1.25 Rs. Ps. | Solatium 100% Rs. Ps. | Addl. Market Value @ 12% from 4(1) Notification to Award date (excluding court stay period) Rs. Ps. | Total amount compensation Rs. Ps. |
| 5,00,000/- | 6,25,000/- | 6,25,000/- | 1,18,830/- (2 years 23 days) | 13,68,830/- |
(d) Despite issuance and receipt of notices under section 37(2) of the 2013 Act, none of the petitioners appeared before the LAO & SDC (LA), APIIC, Visakhapatnam for submission of their respective claims over the subject properties. Consequently, the LAO decided to deposit the compensation awarded under the impugned Award before the LARR Authority Court, Visakhapatnam in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the LAO & SDC(LA), APIIC, Visakhapatnam approached the LARR Authority Court, Visakhapatnam seeking to file a reference under the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 in respect of the lands covered under Phase-1 of the Rambilli VCIC Cluster. The LARR Authority Court, Visakhapatnam directed submission of certain documentary evidence viz., address proof, photo identification, age proof with signature and a passport size photograph bearing the signature for processing the reference files. In compliance, the LAO made efforts to obtain the said documents from the ryots/interested persons. However, the ryots/interested persons refused to furnish the required documentation. Therefore, it is solely due to the petitioners’ failure and non-cooperation that the reference proceedings could not be taken forward before the LARR Authority Court.
(e) A Grama Sabha was conducted on 19.02.2025 at Rythu Bharosa Kendram, Gorapudi, attended by ryots, wherein they demanded higher compensation and rehabilitation benefits. There was no intention to dispossess ryots and the award pertained only to agricultural lands. As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the LAO &SDC (LA), APIIC, Visakhapatnam passed Award No.04/2018 before filing W.A.No.727 of 2018. Notices u/s.37(2) were served by registered post. The allegation that the ryots were unaware of the award is incorrect. Notices u/s.15(2) of the Act, 2013 were duly served on all 39 writ petitioners. The Draft Declaration u/s.19(1) was submitted and subsequently approved by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. Preliminary Valuation proposals recommending Rs.5,00,000/- per acre were submitted in accordance with section 24(1)(a) of the Act, and the award was duly passed under section 23 of the Act. Notices were issued both prior to and after the passing of the Award to all ryots/interested persons. The entire acquisition process was carried out strictly in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and the provisions of the Act, 2013.
(f) The impugned Award No.04/2018 was passed only in respect of agricultural lands. The value of trees and structures wherever existing is to be assessed separately and paid in addition to the land value fixed under the award. The petitioners instead of availing the statutory remedy available to them by approaching the LARR Authority established under the Act, 2013, have chosen to file the present writ petition solely to delay the ongoing land acquisition process. The appropriate forum for raising grievances relating to compensation is before the LARR Authority under section 64 of the Act, 2013.
(g) As stated above, some of the petitioners already preferred W.A.No.727 of 2018 against the order in W.P.No.10328 of 2008 dated 21.06.2017 wherein an interim order was granted suspending further proceedings in relation to the subject land acquisition. However, the said writ appeal was ultimately dismissed for non prosecution on 25.11.2019. In the counter filed in W.A.No.727 of 2018 it was specifically mentioned that all awards have been passed duly following the norms under the LA Act and as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in W.P.No.10328 of 2008. Therefore the appellants in the aforesaid writ appeal were well aware of the award proceedings being passed. Moreover, the following is the list of the appellants in W.A.No.727 of 2018 who are also arrayed as petitioners in the subject writ petition as under:
Therefore it is not true to say that the writ petitioners are not aware of passing of awards in Gorapudi Village.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents relied upon the following decisions:
(i) In the matter of Ramniklal N.Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others ((1997) 1 SCC 134), para Nos.4 & 10 are referred as under:
4. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, urged the following contentions:
(a) that once a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued with respect to CTS No. 218 as well as CTS No. 211, the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to pass an award with respect to both the pieces of land. He had no jurisdiction or authority not to pass the award in respect of CTS No. 218 on the ground of an alleged settlement reported to him by the person for whose benefit it was being acquired. Until and unless a notification was issued under Section 48 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer had no option but to pass an award with respect to both the lands notified. The illegality committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in not passing an award with respect to CTS No. 218 vitiates the award as a whole; it is liable to be struck down even with respect to CTS No. 211.
10. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to make a few observations relevant to land acquisition proceedings. Our country is now launched upon an ambitious programme of all-round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g., South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is, however, recognised on all hands that the infrastructure necessary for sustaining such a pace of progress is woefully lacking in our country. The means of transportation, power and communications are in dire need of substantial improvement, expansion and modernisation. These things very often call for acquisition of land and that too without any delay. It is, however, natural that in most of these cases, the persons affected challenge the acquisition proceedings in courts. These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some cases, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has come where the courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay/injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 indeed any of their discretionary powers. It may even be open to the High Court to direct, in case it finds finally that the acquisition was vitiated on account of non-compliance with some legal requirement that the persons interested shall also be entitled to a particular amount of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a certain percentage of compensation payable. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong; quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.
(ii) In May George v. Special Tahsildar and others ((2010) 13 SCC 98), para Nos.8, 9 & 10 are referred as under:
8. Land measuring 30.80 acres stood notified and acquired. The land consisted of large survey numbers and belonged to a large number of persons. It is not the case of the appellant that the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 were not published or given publicity as mandatorily required under the law. Once award was made and possession had been taken, land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested even it some irregularity is found in the award. As huge area of land had been acquired for planned development of industrial town, the land of the appellant cannot be exempted on any ground whatsoever. More so, the appellant’s land was of negligible area in comparison to the total land acquired and therefore at the behest of only one person, the acquisition proceedings cannot be disturbed.
9. Admittedly, acquisition proceedings/award have been challenged at a belated stage after a decade of taking possession of the land in dispute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is difficult to presume that the appellant had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.
10. While dealing with a similar case, this Court in Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana ((2010) 4 SCC 532 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 220), reported in (2010) 4 SCC 532, has held as under:
“11. …. The only ground taken in the writ petition has been that substance of the notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the 1894 Act had been published in the newspapers having no wide circulation. Even if the submission made by the petitioners is accepted, it cannot be presumed that they could not be aware of the acquisition proceedings for the reason that a very huge chunk of land belonging to a large number of tenure-holders had been notified for acquisition. Therefore, it should have been the talk of the town. Thus, it cannot be presumed that petitioners could not have knowledge of the acquisition proceedings.”
In Sawaran Lata case, this Court has held that acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged at a belated stage.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as no due procedure was followed under the Act, 2013 and no possession is taken so far of the subject lands for acquisition.
7. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances and the rival submissions made at the outset, some of the following provisions of law are relevant for the purpose of this case and the rules made there under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
19. Publication of declaration and summary Rehabilitation and Resettlement :--(1) When the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under sub-section (2) of section 15, that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect, along with a declaration of an area identified as the "resettlement area" for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, under the hand and seal of a Secretary to such Government or of any other officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same preliminary notification irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required).
(2) The Collector shall publish a summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme along with draft declaration referred to in sub-section (1):
Provided that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless the summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is published along with such declaration:
Provided further that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless the Requiring Body deposits an amount, in full or part, as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government toward the cost of acquisition of the land:
Provided also that the Requiring Body shall deposit the amount promptly so as to enable the appropriate Government to publish the declaration within a period of twelve months from the date of the publication of preliminary notification under Section 11……………………..
21. Notice to persons interested:--(1) The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to possession of the land, and that claims to compensations and rehabilitation and resettlement for all interests in such land may be made to him.
(2) The public notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent or advocate before the Collector at a time and place mentioned in the public notice not being less than thirty days and not more than six months after the date of publication of the notice, and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, their claims to rehabilitation and resettlement along with their objections, if any, to the measurements made under section 20.
(3) The Collector may in any case require such statement referred to in sub-section (2) to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.
(4) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier, if any, of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situated.
(5) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the Collector shall ensure that the notice shall be sent to him by post in letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address of place or business and also publish the same in at least two national daily newspapers and also on his website.
23. Enquiry and land acquisition award by Collector :--On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under Section 21, to the measurements made under Section 20, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification, and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement, shall make an award under his hand of-
(a) the true area of the land;
(b) the compensation as determined under section 27 along with Rehabilitation and Resettlement award as determined under section 31 and which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(c) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.
25. Period within which an award shall be made :--The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same:
Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.
27. Determination of amount of compensation :--The Collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner (whose land has been acquired) by including all assets attached to the land.
29. Determination of value of things attached to land or building:-
(1) The Collector in determining the market value of the building and other immovable property or assets attached to the land or building which are to be acquired, use the services of a competent engineer or any other specialist in the relevant field, as may be considered necessary by him.
(2) The Collector for the purpose of determining the value of trees and plants attached to the land acquired, use the services of experienced persons in the field of agriculture, forestry, horticulture, sericulture, or any other field, as may be considered necessary by him.
(3) The Collector for the purpose of assessing the value of the standing crops damaged during the process of land acquisition, may use the services of experienced persons in the field of agriculture as may be considered necessary by him.
30. Award of solatium :--(1) The Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a "Solatium" amount equivalent to one hundred per cent. of the compensation amount.
Explanation: For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired.
(2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment study under sub-section
(2) of section 4, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
38. Power to take possession of land to be acquired :--(1) The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under section 30:
Provided that the components of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package in the Second and Third Schedules that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within a period of eighteen months from the date of the award:
Provided further that in case of acquisition of land for irrigation or hydel project, being a public purpose, the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be completed six months prior to submergence of the lands acquired.
(2) The Collector shall be responsible for ensuring that the rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed in all its aspects before displacing the affected families.
51. Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority :-(1) The appropriate Government shall, for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of disputes relating to land acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, establish, by notification, one or more Authorities to be known as "the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority" to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on it by or under this Act.
(2) The appropriate Government shall also specify in the notification referred to in subsection (1) the areas within which the Authority may exercise jurisdiction for entertaining and deciding the references made to it under section 64 or applications made by the applicant under second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 64.
53. Qualifications for appointment as Presiding Officer :-(1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Presiding Officer of an Authority unless, -
(a) he is or has been a District Judge; or
(b) he is a qualified legal practitioner for not less than seven years.
(2) A Presiding Officer shall be appointed by the appropriate Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of a High Court in whose jurisdiction the Authority is proposed to be established.
64. Reference to Authority:--(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire:
Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.
65. Collector's statement to Authority :-(1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the Authority, in writing under his hand-
(a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon;
(b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land;
(c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under section 13, and the amount of compensation awarded under the provisions of this Act;
(d) the amount paid or deposited under any other provisions of this Act; and
(e) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined.
(2) The statement under sub-section (1) shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the persons interested respectively.
75. Particulars of apportionment to be specified :- When there are several persons interested, if such persons agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award, and as between such persons the award shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.
76. Dispute as to apportionment :--When the amount of compensation has been settled, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such disputes to the Authority.
77. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Authority :--
(1) On making an award under section 30, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them by depositing the amount in their bank accounts unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2).
(2) If the person entitled to compensation shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Authority to which a reference under section 64 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided further that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under sub-section (1) of section 64:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.
Rules 2015
3. Request for acquisition of land :-(1) After completion of Social Impact Assessment, wherever applicable and receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Group, if it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, the Requiring Body or its authorised representative, for whom land is to be acquired shall file the request to the concerned Collector in FORM-I along with the following documents, namely :-
(i) detailed project report;
(ii) sanction letter of project;
(iii) three copies of Record of Rights and revenue maps of the affected areas;
(iv) information about the classification of land that is, irrigated multi-cropped, single cropped, wasteland, etc;
(v) any other information required by the Collector.
(2) A copy of the request filed with the Collector under sub-rule (1) shall be submitted to the Commissioner.
(3) Where the Requiring Body is the Government, the request shall be filed by the Secretary of the concerned Department and in case of Public Sector Undertaking, by Secretary of the Department dealing with such undertaking.
4. Action by Collector on receiving request :-(1) (a) The Collector, on receiving the request under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, shall constitute a committee of officers consisting of officers from Revenue Department, Agriculture Department, Forest Department, Water Resources Department, Building Department or any other Department as the Collector deems necessary to make a field visit along with the representatives of the Requiring Body to make a preliminary enquiry regarding-
(i) availability of waste or arid land;
(ii) correctness of the particulars furnished in the request under sub-rule (1) of rule 3;
(iii) bare minimum land required for the project;
(iv) whether the request is consistent with the provisions of the Act, and submit a report to the Collector.
(b) The report of the committee referred to in clause (a) shall include the following, namely :-
(i) that the proposed acquisition of land serves public purpose;
(ii) that the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare-minimum needed for the project;
(iii) that the acquisition of land at an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible;
(iv) that there is no unutilised land which has been previously acquired in the area;
(v) that the land, if any, acquired earlier and remained unutilised, may be used for such public purpose;
(vi) the recommendations of the committee.
(2) (a) If the Collector, on the basis of the report of the committe referred to in sub-rule (1), other information available with him and instructions issued by the Central Government in this regard, is satisfied that the request is consistent with the provisions of the Act, he shall make a preliminary estimate of the cost of the acquisition as defined in clause (i) of section 3.
(b) The administrative cost under item (A) of sub-clause (vi) clause (i) of section 3 shall be at the rate of five per cent of the cost of compensation as provided in sub-clause (i) of clause (i) of section 3 subject to a maximum of five crore rupees.
(c) The Collector shall inform the Requiring Body to deposit the estimated cost of acquisition or part thereof as specified by the Collector in the designated account of the office of the Collector before the publication of declaration under sub-section (2) of section 19 within such period as may be specified by him and the Requiring Body shall deposit the same within the said period.
(3) The Requiring Body shall deposit the balance cost of acquisition after final estimation is prepared by the Collector and in cases where excess amount is awarded by the Authority or Court, the same shall be deposited as and when so required.
5. Publication of preliminary notification :--
(3) After publication of the preliminary notification under section 11, the Collector shall ensure completion of the exercise of updating land records specified here under: -
(a) delete the names of deceased persons;
(b) enter the names of the legal heirs of the deceased persons;
(c) enter the registered transactions of the rights in land such as sale, gift, partition, etc.;
(d) make all entries of the mortgages in the land records;
(e) delete the entries of mortgages in case the lending agency issues letter towards full payment of loans taken through registered reconveyance of mortgaged property deeds;
(f) make necessary entries in respect of all prevalent forest laws;
(g) make necessary entries in case of the Government land;
(h) make necessary entries in respect of assets on the land like buildings, trees, wells, etc.;
(i) make necessary entries of share-croppers in the land;
j) make necessary entries of crops grown or sown and the area of such crops; and
(k) any other relevant entries.
6. Hearing of objections :--(1) The Collector shall issue a notice for inviting objections in FORM III and after hearing all objections and making enquiry as provided under sub-section (2) of section 15 shall submit a report along with his recommendations on the objections to the appropriate Government for decision.
(2) The report of the Collector shall include the following:-
(a) assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves public purpose;
(b) whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for the project;
(c) whether land acquisition at an alternate place has been considered and found not feasible;
(d) there is no unutilised land which has been previously acquired in the area;
(e) the land, if any, acquired earlier and remained unutilised, is used for such public purpose and recommendations in respect thereof;
(f) recommendations on the objections;
(g) record of proceedings;
(h) approximate cost of land acquisition in cases where Social Impact Assessment has been exempted.
7. Preparation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme and public hearing:- (1) Upon publication of the preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of section 11, the Administrator shall conduct a survey and undertake a census of the affected families within a period of two months from the date of publication of such preliminary notification.
(2) For the purpose of the survey to be conducted and the census of the affected families to be undertaken by the Administrator, he shall take into account-
(a) the Social Impact Assessment report;
(b) the records of the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and other Government records.
(3) The Administrator shall get the data verified by door to door visit of the affected families and by site visits in case of infrastructure projects in the affected area.
(4) The draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme prepared by the Administrator shall, in addition to the particulars mentioned in the sub-section (2) of section 16, contain the following, namely:-
(a) list of affected families with Aadhaar number of its members. if available;
(b) list of displaced families with Aadhaar number of its members, if available;
(c) list of infrastructure in the affected area;
(d) list of land holdings in the affected area;
(e) list of trees, buildings, other immovable property or assets attached to the land or building which are to be acquired;
(f) list of trades or businesses in the affected area;
(g) list of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, the handicapped or physically challenged persons in the affected area:
Provided that in case a person does not have an Aadhaar number, efforts may be made to get him so enrolled, provided he gives his consent for such enrolment and the claims of the affected families may be facilitated by carrying out consent-based Aadhaar authentication service.
(5) The Administrator shall give wide publicity to the draft Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme in the affected area through publication in the following manner, namely:-
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers being circulated in the locality of such area of which one shall be in the regional language:
Provided that in a place where such media is not available, then this clause shall not apply;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil, Taluk, Sub-division or Block, as the case may be;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government.
(6) The Administrator or an officer authorised by him shall conduct a public hearing in the affected areas by issuing advance notice of three weeks on the date, time and venue mentioned in the said notice in accordance with the provisions of rule 8 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) Rules, 2014, dated the 8th August, 2014.
8. Publication of the approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme :--The Commissioner shall publish the approved Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme by affixing it in conspicuous places in the affected area.
10. Publication of declaration for acquisition:--The declaration referred to in sub-sec. (1) of section 19 shall be published by affixing a copy thereof in local language at conspicuous places in the affected areas in FORM V.
11. Land acquisition award :--The land acquisition award referred to in section 23 shall be made in FORM VI and FORM VII.
8. From the above and upon appreciating the contentions of the petitioners, it can be culled out according to the petitioners as under:
• The impugned awards are not communicated to the petitioners and no compensation is paid so far.
• Rs.20 lakhs per acre was fixed towards compensation for the acquisition of the land under consent award in the year 2018 and the same was negotiated with the petitioners neither before nor after determination of the compensation and passing of awards.
• No individual awards were passed and no possession of the properties were taken from the petitioners.
• No restorative package is announced.
• The compensation amount was also not deposited before the appropriate authority and it cannot be kept in revenue deposits under the old Act, 1994.
• There is no delay and latches on the part of the petitioners.
• There is no publication of the restorative resettlement package.
• There are no statutory compliances.
• Specifically no notices u/s.37(2) were issued and no acknowledgements were filed.
• In respect of applying the multiplier, rules cannot override the statutory provision.
• State government has no rule making power to fix the multiplier for the sanctioned owners Rs.20 lakhs per acre was fixed towards compensation but in the case of non sanctioned owners/petitioners Rs.6 lakhs was fixed per acre which has no rationale. The impugned award is contrary to the statute and liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondents that as seen above, some of the petitioners have knowledge about passing of the impugned awards and they cannot plead ignorance of the same. There is an abnormal delay in questioning the awards as the present writ petition was filed on 07.02.2025 when they have got knowledge of the same through counter of the 4th respondent therein in W.A.No.727 of 2018 dated 18.12.2018. Hence, the only remedy available for the petitioners is to invoke section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013. The grievance of the petitioners on merits is the subject matter of enquiry u/s.64 of the Act, 2013. In this case, the appropriate government is the state government. As per Rule 2B, the appropriate government is the state government. Even as per section 3(e), the appropriate government in this case is the state and therefore the multiplier 1.25 was correctly applied. Rules of 2015 are not applicable. In total, around 1749 acres were acquired for the above said project. Out of it, 23% of the land only pertains to the petitioners in all these cases.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, as the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation fixed under the impugned award and as there was a special compensation amount was fixed as stated above for consent awards, same benefit can also be extended to the petitioners upon deliberations and negotiations by arriving a consensus on it. In view of the further delay occurred in satisfying the petitioners for consent award, a special package can also be announced for the petitioners after due deliberations and negotiations by arriving consensus on determination of the said compensation amount. Since the petitioners are seeking enhancement of compensation by raising different grounds assailing the award dated 10.04.2018 under the above said facts and circumstances, they are at liberty to avail the effective and alternative remedy u/s.64 of the Act 30 of 2013 and upon availing the same, notwithstanding the delay occurred if any, the said LARR authority shall consider the case of the petitioners on merits following the due procedure under the Act 30 of 2013. The possession of the subject lands can also be taken by the respondent authorities concerned following the due procedure under the said Act and rules made there under. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of.
11. Since the other batch of cases are also with similar set of facts and circumstances assailing the different awards passed under the same acquisition process with respect to the different petitioners for the different subject extents covered under the same project, they are also disposed of in common extending the same relief as granted in this writ petition.
12. Accordingly, all the other writ petitions are also disposed of. The operative portion is extended uniformly in all the cases. Interim orders, if any, in all these batch of cases are deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.