THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.30018 of 2011 Dated 11th November, 2011 Between: Malladi Satyanarayana Srinivasa Chakravarthi …Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep.by its District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sita Ram Chaparla Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Naram Nageswara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s objections, dated 17.10.2011, relating to acquisition of lands admeasuring Acs.4.46 cents in Survey No.49/1 and Acs.1.79 cents in Survey No.49/2A of Mulagalampalli Village, West Godavari as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri Naram Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.4. The above-mentioned lands have been notified for acquisition for construction of Chintalapudi Pressure Main Lift-III connected with the Indira Sagar Project. The lands have been notified in the name of respondent No.4. The petitioner, a rival claimant to the said lands, pleaded that he raised objections in the enquiry being held under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and that respondent No.3 is not considering the same. While the petitioner is not opposing the acquisition proceedings as such, his objection is to the recognition of respondent No.4 as the owner of the property and he wants compensation to be paid to him. The scope of Section 5-A of the Act is limited to the objection of the land owner to the acquisition of the property. At this stage, the rival claims for compensation have no relevance. It is only in the award enquiry, which will be held after giving notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act that a person, who is interested over the land, can make a claim for payment of compensation. Even those persons to whom individual notices have not been served under Section 9(3) of the Act are entitled to submit their claims in pursuance of the general notice issued under Section 9(1) of the Act. The petitioner is, therefore, given liberty to file objections in pursuance of such general notice before respondent No.3, who shall consider the same along with the claim of respondent No.4 before passing award. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37202 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th November, 2011 Note: Issue CC by 16.11.2011. (b/o) VGB