IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6614 of 2008 Between: 1 Premdas Goud S/o. Late T. Laxmaiah Goud R/o. 8-5-146/1, Mailardevpally Village,New Durganagar Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 T. Devadas Goud S/o. T. Laxmaiah Goud R/o. Mailardevpally Village,New Durganagar Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 T. Balsetty Goud S/o. T. Laxmaiah Goud R/o. Mailardevpally Village,New Durganagar Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Smt. T. Sujatha W/o. Premdas Goud, R/o. Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 5 T. Srinvias Goud S/o.T,. Premdas Goud R/o. Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Sridhar Goud S/o. Premdas Goud R/o. Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Ravikanth GOud S/o. Premdas Goud R/o. Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. (The 7th Petitioner being minor rep. by his father and natur guardina, 1st petitioner Premdas Goud) ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, yderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3 Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Genl.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad District. 4 Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order declaring the proposed action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of the land and demolish the structures and sheds therein in an extent of Ac 0.31.47 guntas in Sy.No. 164 , Sy.No. 154 to 159 , Plot Nos. 15 and 6 admeasuring 450 Sq. yards the land admeasuring 450 sq. yards covered by Plot Nos. 14 and 7 in Sy.No. 154 to 159 , Plot Nos. 16 and 5 admeasuring 450 sq. yards in Sy.No. 154 to 159 and an extent of 0.16 guntas out of Ac 5.00 in Sy.No. 154 to 159 situated at Bandlaguda Khalsa Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to the impugned notice under 4(1)(Form-5 vide Memo No. D4/3072/2007 dt. 13-10-2007) of the Land Acquisition Act and consequential notices Under Sec. 5-A of the Act dt. 18-6-2007 Notice Under Sec. 9(3) and 10 of the L.A. Act dt. 26-10- 2007 and Form -10 of the L.A. Act dt. 15-12-2007 as illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings including dispossession and demolition of the structures and sheds of the petitioner from their above said land and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.Nos.6614 and 6585 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners grievance in these two writ petitions is that they were not put on notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and that they were not given opportunity of personal hearing. What has been challenged in these writ petitions is the notice issued in Form-10 consequent upon an award being passed, directing the petitioners to hand over possession of a part of their property for the public purpose of road widening. It is after the award is passed that the petitioners have chosen to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to challenge the action of the respondents for their failure to comply with the requirements of Section 5-A of the Act. In their counter affidavit, respondents would state that Section 5-A notices were issued to the petitioners, that the petitioners had submitted their objections, that, despite giving an opportunity of personal hearing, petitioners had not chosen to attend the enquiry, that it is only after their objections were considered that an order was passed under Section 5-A of the Act and thereafter the other procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act were complied with culminating in the passing of the award. Since the petitioners objections, pursuant to the Section 5-A notice, have been considered by the authorities concerned and, in the light of the specific assertion in the counter affidavit that the petitioners did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing though given, there is no justification to hold that the petitioners had been denied the opportunity of a personal hearing in the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act. Since the scope of enquiry regarding the satisfaction required to be arrived at by the competent authority under Section 5-A is limited, I see no reason to interfere with the action taken by the respondents in this regard. Since this is the only ground on which the action of the respondents is under challenge, the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ 16-12-2008 asp