HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13908 of 2008 Date: February 15, 2011 Between: 1. Barabari Venkataiah & 5 others. … Petitioners and 1. The State, rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.13908 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to declare the Notification Rc.No.L.175/07, dated 26.11.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners, as illegal. 2. The petitioners are the owners of an extent of Ac.3-15 cents situated in Sy.No.163/3A2; Ac.1-49 in Sy.No.163/3B1B and Ac.0-74 cents in Sy.No.163/3B2A of Nunepally village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. The said lands are sought to be acquired by means of the impugned notification. 3. The aforesaid acquisition is challenged on the ground that the land is a joint family property and the same was partitioned between the petitioners on 20.01.2006. On such partition, each of the petitioners is left with less than Ac.1-00. Thus, they are small farmers. It is also contended that the draft notification has not been published in two daily newspapers as required and that the petitioners have not been given an opportunity of being heard as required under Section 5(A)(2) of the Act. 4. The third respondent-Land Acquisition Officer has filed counter-affidavit stating that the draft notification was published in the Kurnool District Gazette on 26.11.2007 besides the publication of the same in two daily newspapers viz., Vaartha and Mahanagar on 29.11.2007 in addition to the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality on 30.11.2007. It is also stated that notices dated 27.11.2007 were served on the petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanations and also to appear for hearing on 27.12.2007. In response thereto, the petitioners submitted their objections on 26.12.2007 and after considering the objections, the District Collector rejected the same and approved the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Draft Declaration was also published in the Kurnool District Gazette on 05.7.2008 and also in two daily newspapers viz., Prajasakthi and Ushodayam on 12.7.2008 and 13.7.2008 respectively in addition to the publication of the substance in the locality on 09.7.2008. Thus, it is denied that the Draft Notification was made without compliance of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5(A)(2) of the Act. 5. The petitioners although pleaded that the draft notification was published in the Gazette, it is contended that no such publication has been made in the newspapers. The Land Acquisition Officer has categorically stated that such publication has been made in the newspapers referred to above. The said statement has not been controverted by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder. Similarly, there is no denial that the notice dated 27.11.2007 for enquiry under Section 5(A) has been served on the petitioners. Notwithstanding, it is contended that the said notice does not comply with the requirements of sub-Section (2) of Section 5(A) which states that an objector should be afforded an opportunity of being heard either in person or through an advocate. But, on a perusal of the said notice it is evident that in addition to calling upon the petitioners to submit their objections, the petitioner had been afforded opportunity of being heard as per the prescription of law. 6. The counsel however pursued taking an objection that the said hearing does not comply with the mandatory requirement of 30 days to elapse before such hearing could take place. It is contended that the notice itself was dated 27.11.2007 and the petitioners received the said notice only on 30.11.2007. Therefore, the hearing fixed on 27.12.2007 does not comply with the requirement of 30 days. The said contention does not commend in acceptance by this Court. As per sub-Section (1) of Section 5(A) of the Act objections are to be filed within 30 days of causing publication of the notification. As mentioned above, the notification was made on 26.11.2007. Thus, the notice dated 27.11.2007 calling for objections and the hearing scheduled on 27.12.2007 cannot be said to be violative of the prescription. In any event, the petitioners have not challenged the decision made under Section 5(A) of the Act. It is stated that award enquiry was also conducted after due notice to the petitioners after due publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: February 15, 2011. BSB