IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WVMP NO.2756 of 2007 And WRIT PETITION No.12965 of 2007 Between: Sai Samba Krishna Raja Kolla … Petitioner AND The District Collector, West Godavari District At Eluru and another. …. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Srinivas for Sri B.V.V.S.Murthy. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WVMP NO.2756 of 2007 And WRIT PETITION No.12965 of 2007 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 28-4-2007 and 15-6-2007 - whereby an extent of Ac.1.15 cents of land, belonging to the petitioner, comprised in Survey Nos.107/8B and 107/9 of Pallipalem village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District, is proposed to be acquired - as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The above-mentioned extent of land was proposed to be acquired by the respondents vide notification dated 12-1-2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner claims to be residing in USA. He pleaded that when his well-wishers in the village heard the rumors that his land is sought to be acquired, he was informed telephonically on 2-6-07 about the same and that later he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri T.Ramchander of Bagh Ameberpet, Hyderabad, who filed objections before respondent No.1 in the month of June, 2007. Sri Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.V.V.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions: (i) the impugned proceedings, by which the petitioner’s land is proposed to be acquired is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 in view of its non-conversion for non- agricultural use; and (ii) the respondents committed a serious violation of principles of natural justice. With regard to the first contention, the same is liable to be rejected in view of judgment dated 28-12-2008 passed in Writ Petition No.18881 of 2006 and batch, wherein this Court negatived a similar contention. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is rejected. With regard to the second contention, relating to violation of principles of natural justice, a perusal of the pleadings and the record reveals that notice dated 8-2-2007 under Section 5-A of the Act in Form No.3 was sought to be served on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not residing in the village, where the lands are located, it is claimed by the respondents that notice was served by way of affixture at the lands, apart from publication of notice as prescribed. The respondents further claimed that date of enquiry was fixed as 24-2-2007 and the same was mentioned in Form No.3 notice, but objections were received only on 8-5-2007 by which time respondent No.1 approved the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 28-4-2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act and contended that the procedure prescribed in the said provision was not followed by the respondents in serving Form-3 notice and that straightaway the respondents resorted to procedure of service of notice by affixture at the place where the land is located. The said provision envisages service of notice by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed in the case of a notice under Section 4 by the officer therein mentioned, and in the case of any other notice, by an order of the Collector or the Judge; whenever it is practicable the service of notice may be effected on the person named in the notice; and when such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of the family residing with him; and if no such adult member is found, the notice may be served by fixing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person named therein ordinarily dwells or carries on business or by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the officer aforesaid or the Collector or in the court-house and also in some conspicuous part of the property to be acquired. It is not the specific case of the petitioner that he has permanent residence in the village in question nor is it the case of the petitioner that on seeing the publication under Section 4(1) in the newspaper, any person connected with the petitioner informed the respondents about the address to which notices should be sent. In the absence of any such intimation to the respondents and attribution of knowledge of the respondents about the existence of any address of the petitioner in the village, the procedure of affixture followed by the respondents cannot be found fault with. It has also come on record that Award was passed on 12-7- 12007. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from making appropriate application for reference of his claim for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil Court. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WVMP No.2756 of 2007 is ordered and interim order dated 16-7-2007 passed in WPMP No.16185 of 2007 is vacated. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 05-2-2008 MNR