THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1728 of 2008 Date:26.04.2011 Between: C.Padmanabhaiah @ Padmanabha Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.V.Muni Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the notification dated 21.03.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) to the extent of proposed acquisition of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.13 cents, Ac.0.54 cents, Ac.0.07 cents, Ac.0.54 cents, Ac.0.44 cents in survey Nos.20/1, 20/2, 20/3, 20/4 and 20/5 respectively of Cherivi Village, Sathyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. After the writ petition was filed, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.7289 of 2008 seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition so as to set aside the draft declaration in proceedings No.Roc.G2/3758/2006 dated 15.11.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. By a separate order passed today, this application has been ordered. The petitioner is the owner of the abovementioned lands. He has averred that in the year 1988, he intended to construct a rice mill over the land and accordingly after availing loan, he has constructed the rice mill, which is being run in the name and style of Padmanaba Rice Mill, Kallam. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the acquisition proceedings mainly on the ground that respondent No.3 neither issued a notice to the petitioner nor held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 5- A of the Act. At the hearing, Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above plea, submitted that even if an enquiry was held, respondent No.3 is not competent to hold such an enquiry. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is inter alia stated that the Zonal Manager of respondent No.4 has placed requisition dated 23.02.2006 for acquisition of Acs.62.06 of lands in survey Nos.1/1 etc., of Cherivi Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District, for establishing an Industrial Park (Special Economic Zone) including an extent of Acs.1.72 cents of land in survey No.20/1 belonging to the petitioner. Draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was approved by the Collector, Chittoor on 20.03.2006 and the same was published in the Andhra Pradesh State Gazette Extraordinary on the same day; that the contents of the notification were published in two daily news papers, namely, Andhra Bhoomi and Vaartha on 28.03.2006 and that the substance of the notification was published in the locality on 24.04.2006. That no objections were received following the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act within the stipulated time of 30 days from the date of publication of notification as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act and therefore, in the absence of any objections, enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was not necessitated and accordingly, draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was submitted to the Collector, Chittoor, which was approved by him vide his proceedings dated 15.11.2006 and that the draft declaration was published in the Andhra Pradesh State Gazette dated 15.11.2006 apart from in two daily newspapers, namely, Andhra Prabha and Vaartha on 23.11.2006. After completing all other formalities, respondent No.4 has filed a written consent in Form V as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992 (for short ‘the Rules’) before the District Collector and Chairman, Negotiation Committee to pass a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act; that Form I notices as required under the Rules have been issued to all the land owners/persons interested in the lands; that in response to Form I notice, land owners including the petitioner have come forward for passing a consent award by giving consent in Form III (Agreement) and in Form IV (Affidavit) to that effect on 17.05.2007. Details regarding the market value and the amount of compensation awarded have been mentioned in the counter-affidavit, specific reference to which is not necessary in this context. The counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 is also on similar lines as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 referred to above. In the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is inter alia stated that as respondent No.3 has not issued notice to the petitioner and as no enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner had no opportunity to represent against the proposed acquisition. In reply to the averment that in the absence of objections, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was unwarranted, the petitioner stated that he has “objected immediately” to the acquisition of his lands. From the perusal of the reply-affidavit, I find that the petitioner has come out with inconsistent stands. In para 5, he has stated that as no notice was served on him, he could not file his objections, while in para 7, he has stated that on coming to know about the proposed acquisition, he has objected. Be that as it may, under the provisions of the Act, service of personal notice is not required before the person interested filed his objections. It is only after such objections are filed that the Collector will issue notice to the objector fixing the date for personal hearing. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that there was any defect in the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, it was incumbent upon him to file objections without expecting service of personal notice on him. As noted above, even though a vague plea was raised by the petitioner that he immediately objected to the proposed acquisition, he has not substantiated the same by filing any document in proof thereof. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the petitioner, this vague plea cannot be accepted. Since the petitioner failed to submit his objections, there was no necessity of holding a formal enquiry. With regard to the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has no power to hold an enquiry, such a plea cannot be sustained for two reasons, namely, (i) that under Section 5-A of the Act, the Collector is competent to hold an enquiry and hear the objections. Section 3(c) of the Act defined ‘Collector’ as the Collector of a District, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has submitted that respondent No.3 is authorized to discharge the functions of Collector and this submission is not controverted to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and (ii) at any rate, there was no necessity for holding an enquiry in the absence of objections filed by any of the land owners including the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. With respect to the consent award stated to have been passed by the respondents, in my opinion, this aspect does not fall for adjudication in this writ petition because no relief with respect thereto has been claimed by the petitioner. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his client has not given consent, for the aforementioned reasons, this contention is not germane for consideration in the present writ petition. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the consent award, he is entitled to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 24.03.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.2152 of 2008 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.2152 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.1193 of 2010 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th April, 2011 GHN