*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY +W.P.No.825 of 2009 % 11-4-2011 # Kunapareddy Prasad and others .. Petitioners Vs. $ The District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and others .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.Chidambaram ^ Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P. for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4 : None appeared ? CASES REFERRED : Nil HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.825 of 2009 Date : 11-4-2011 Between : Kunapareddy Prasad and others .. Petitioners And The District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P. for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4 : None appeared 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. The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings in Roc.No.292/2007/G2(SW) dated 18-5-2007, proceedings in Roc.No.G2/292/2007(SW) dated 24-12-2008 and consequential proceedings in Roc.No.G2/292/2007/SW, dated 5-1-2009 of respondent No.1 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"). Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are the tenents and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of the extent of Ac.4- 45 cents in S.No.462/1 and Ac.3-20 cents in Sy.No.462/2 of Rustumbada village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued for acquiring the above lands along with other lands for providing house sites to the weaker sections. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.12591/2007 and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 filed W.P.No.12580/2007 challenging the said notification. While the said Writ Petitions were pending, interim direction not to dispossess was granted. Respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 24-12-2008 whereby he has passed order approving the proposal for acquisition after completion of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Following the said order, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued in proceedings dated 5-1-2009. The only ground raised by the petitioners in this Writ Petition is that no notice was issued to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and therefore proceedings which culminated in issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act are illegal. At the hearing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of Sections 4(1) and 5-A of the Act r/w. Rule 1 of the Rules made under sub- section (1) of Section 55 of the Act, respondent No.1 is under obligation to issue notices to the petitioners before proceeding with the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and that as respondent No.1 failed to follow this mandatory procedure, the impugned notifications cannot be sustained. Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, opposing the above contention submitted that under the scheme of the Act and the Rules, no personal notice is envisaged inviting objections and that it is only after the objections are received by the Collector that personal notices will be served on the objectors before holding an enquiry. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record. Section 4(1) of the Act empowers the appropriate Government or the District Collector to publish in the official Gazette and also in the newspapers in the locality, public notice of the proposed acquisition of the land needed for any public purpose or for a company. Under Section 5-A of the Act, any person interested in the land is entitled to object to the acquisition of the land within 30 days of causing the public notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act, every objection shall be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalf or by a pleader. Rule 1 of the Rules referred to above envisages that after publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Collector shall issue a notice stating that the land is needed or is likely to be needed, as the case may be, for a public purpose and requiring all persons interested in the land to lodge before him within 30 days after the issue of the notification, a statement in writing of their objections, if any to the proposed acquisition and that this notice shall be published at convenient places in the locality and copies thereof fixed up in the office of the Collector, the Tahsildar and in the nearest police station. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, the scheme of the Act and the Rules do not envisage personal notice to either the owner of the land or any person interested therein. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the public notice as envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act and Rule 1 of the Rules mentioned above, has not been issued by respondent No.1. Admittedly, the petitioners failed to submit their objections. In the absence of such objections having been filed, they were not entitled to any personal notice because under sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act, such personal notices shall be given to the objectors only. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim stay granted on 28-1-2009 stands vacated; WPMP No.1036/2009 is dismissed and WVMP No.3274/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 11-4-2011 AM