THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5378 of 2004 Dated:10.02.2011 Between: Dr.C.Dharma Rao. ...Petitioner And District Collector, Eas Godavari District, Kakinada, And another. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5378 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner statedly was the trustee and Chairman of the Trust Board of Sri Sridevi and Bhudevi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Kongodu Village of Kapra Mandal in East Godavari District. He alleges that his forefathers donated lands in R.S.Nos.91, 150 and 150/2 admeasuring about Acs.15.00 to the said temple. In 1999 respondents acquired an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in R.S.No.150/2 without paying any compensation in spite of representation by the petitioner. Again the second respondent issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire the land admeasuring Acs.3.59 cents in R.S.No.91 for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in acquiring the temple lands as illegal and arbitrary. The second respondent filed counter affidavit. It is admitted that Ac.1.60 cents in survey No.150/2 was acquired for house sites. It is stated that an amount of Rs.1,36,448/- was tendered towards 80% of compensation vide proceedings of the second respondent dated 21.05.1999 and possession was taken. The Assistant Commissioner or the petitioner did not produce any proof for the purpose of payment. Again it is proposed to acquire Acs.3.59 cents in R.S.No.91 for providing house sites. After receiving notice, one of the legal heirs of the hereditary trustees filed a representation. But, when the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was held on 28.01.2004 no one appeared in the enquiry. In the meanwhile, Smt.Patta Venkayamma filed W.P.No.4748 of 2004. The same was disposed of on 15.03.2004 directing the petitioner therein to file an application before the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for redressal of grievance in respect of apportionment of compensation. It is also alleged that the petitioner has not approached the LAO with proof of ownership of lands. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, the only question that arises for consideration is regarding the payment of compensation. Admittedly, the petitioner is no more the Chairman of the Trust Board. No evidence to that effect is placed before this Court. The temple which is shown as the owner when Ac.1.60 cents was acquired and which is shown as owner even in the present land acquisition proceedings is not made a party. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, this Court observes that the compensation payable for the land shall be paid to Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Kongodu, which is the owner even according to the revenue records as reflected in the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. This observation would safeguard the interest of the temple and would prevent any unauthorized person claiming the compensation. The Writ Petition with the above observations stands disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.02.2011 vs