IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.599 of 2008 Between: 1.Chilaka Moses and another ..... PETITIONERS AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.599 of 2008 Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners to participate in the award enquiry pertaining to notification dated 15-12-2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. The averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, show that the extents of Ac.1.20 cents, Ac.4.87 cents, Ac.2.14 cents and Ac.0.74 cents comprised in Survey Nos.310/1, 318, 320/1 and 310/3 of Kalanuthala Village respectively were proposed to be acquired under the above mentioned notification in connection with Poola Subbaiah Velugonda Project. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to substantial share in the compensation, which is payable for the acquisition of the said properties, and that respondent No.4 manipulated the records and managed to get his name published in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they made representation dated 18-12-2007 to respondent No.2 claiming apportionment of compensation, he has not, so far, given any notice and permitted the petitioners to participate in the award enquiry. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In the manner, in which, I am proposing to dispose of this Writ Petition, I felt it not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. As noted supra, the only grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 is not allowing them to participate in the award enquiry. Section 11 of the Act envisages that after giving public notice and personal notice required under Section 9 of the Act to the persons interested, the Collector shall enquire into the objections, which any person has stated pursuant to such notice, and make an award. The scope of Section 11 of the Act is, therefore, wide. It would envisage consideration of objections filed not only by the persons, who received personal notices under Section 9 of the Act, but also the persons, who respond to the public notice and file their objections. It is therefore, incumbent upon respondent No.2 to entertain the objections filed by the petitioners and give them an opportunity to participate in the award enquiry. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider objections dated 18-12-2007 filed by the petitioners, along with the claims of respondent No.4, and hear the parties in person before passing the award. ___________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY) 21-01-2008 LUR