IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.172 of 2008 Between: P.Narmada ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.172 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) whereby an extent of Ac.1.37 cents, comprised in Sy.No.145/3 of Kondiparru Village, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District is proposed to be acquired, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition. The above mentioned extent of land was notified for acquisition under Notification dated 12.10.2007. Notice under Sec.5-A of the Act was issued to the father of the petitioner by name Sri Mora Sanjeeva Reddy. After completion of enquiry, order was passed on 17.11.2007 by respondent No.1, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner’s father were rejected. Thereafter, declaration under Sec.6 was published on different dates, commencing from 05.12.2007 in Krishna District Gazette and followed by publication in news papers on 10.12.2007 and 12.12.2007 and substance in the locality on 13.12.2007. It is the case of the respondents that notices under Sec.9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued on 10.12.2007 asking the petitioner’s father to attend the award enquiry to be held on 27.12.2007 before respondent No.2 and that neither the petitioner nor her father attended the award enquiry and instead they filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s father executed a registered settlement deed in her favour on 25.09.2007 and that her name was shown in the notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act. She further submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner or her father and that the specific boundaries of Ac.1.95 cents are not indicated so far in any of the proceedings by the respondents. With regard to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the order dated 17.11.2007, passed by respondent No.1, shows that the said objection was considered by respondent No.2 and it is observed in the remarks sent by him which were extracted in his order by respondent No.1 that the transfer of the land in favour of his daughter by the petitioner’s father is only intended to evade acquisition of the land. Considering the proximity between the date of transfer and the date of notification, I am convinced that the presumption drawn by the respondents that transfer was intended to avoid acquisition is legally sustainable. Ordinarily, before publication of a notification under Sec.4(1), the authorities, entrusted with the task of acquisition of lands, attend to various preliminary formalities including inspection etc., of the lands and the owners of the land are bound to know the proposed acquisitions. While transfer of the property was made on 25.09.2007, notification under Sec.4(1) was published on 16.10.2007 in the District Gazette. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the landowners have knowledge of the proposed acquisition. At any rate, it is not the case of the petitioner that following the execution of the settlement deed, her name was mutated in the revenue records, and hence, failure of the respondents to give notice to the petitioner instead of her father, cannot be said to constitute any illegality. With regard to the second contention, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is specifically averred that in response to the notice issued on 22.10.2007 under Sec.5-A of the Act, the father of the petitioner attended the enquiry on 07.11.2007 and filed his objections and that he enquired into the said objections and submitted a report to the District Collector. Neither the father of the petitioner nor the petitioner filed any affidavit controverting the said allegations. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of respondent No.2 made on oath in her counter affidavit that the petitioner’s father was given the opportunity of personal hearing. With respect to the third contention, it is specifically stated that notice of the award enquiry was served on the father of the petitioner, but he was not present on the day on which the enquiry was scheduled. Since the petitioner filed the present writ petition without attending the enquiry, she and her father are given liberty to approach the respondents and seek appropriate clarification on the exact location of the land, which is proposed to be acquired. Respondent No.2 shall give the petitioner or her father an opportunity of hearing in this regard before taking possession of the land. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.179 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 14.02.2008 Dsr