THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5185 of 2007 Dated 27th June, 2011 Between: K.Madhavan and others …Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P.Roy Reddy Counsel for respondent No.5: Mrs.Vijaya Lakshmi for Sri S.Bharat Kumar The Court made the following: 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 mandamus to set aside notification, dated 16.03.2006, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and declaration, dated 18.03.2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners are the owners of certain extents of land, which are notified for acquisition for a public purpose, namely, establishment of a Special Economic Zone. The petitioners some of whom claim to be not residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh did not file their objections to the above-mentioned notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Resultantly, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made and award enquiry was held on 18.11.2006. In pursuance of the notices issued under Sections 9(1) and (3) of the Act, it is not in dispute that one of the petitioners i.e., petitioner No.1, participated in the award enquiry as well. However, to give a final opportunity to those who did not participate in the award enquiry proceedings, a public notice was issued giving time upto 05.01.2007 for filing objections, if any, regarding ownership and title of the properties acquired under the impugned notification. At the hearing, it has come out that an award was passed on 18.03.2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners had no opportunity of filing objections to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the acquisition proceedings need to be declared as illegal. I am afraid, this submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted because it is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the impugned notification suffers from any illegality or procedural irregularity. No conceivable reason has been assigned by the petitioners for not filing the objections in response to the impugned notification. The petitioners failed to make out any defect in the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though an award was stated to have been passed on 18.03.2007, so far the same has not been communicated to the petitioners and the compensation amount under the said award has not been paid. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the petitioners on 17.05.2007 and 21.05.2007. In the light of the above facts, while declining to interfere with the impugned land acquisition proceedings, liberty is however given to the petitioners to pursue their remedy under Section 18 of the Act strictly in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 15.03.2007, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.6619 of 2007 and W.V.M.P.No.3157 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th June, 2011 VGB