IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 366 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/02/2008 in WP NO : 12965 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sai Samba Krishna Raja Kolla, S/o. K. S. Ramanadham, R/o. 201, St Paul Av. New Jersey City New York, USA, Rep. by his GPA T. Ramahander, S/o. late T. Balaram, Aged 49 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2-3-3/2/B/1, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.B.V.V.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 366 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Anil R.Dave) Being aggrieved by an order dated 5th February 2008 passed in Writ Petition No.12965 of 2007, the appellant/original petitioner has filed this appeal. The subject matter of the petition was non-service of notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is not in dispute that the appellant-petitioner is a Non-resident Indian. When notice under Section 5-A of the Act was to be served, as his whereabouts were not known, the notice had been affixed near the land in question. In the circumstances, the appellant or his representative could not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. It is not in dispute that notice had been duly served as per provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act, but as the appellant was not in India, he could not know about the contents of the notice. The learned Single Judge has recorded the above fact and has also noted the fact that the Award had been made on 12th July 2007. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge did not find any fault with the acquisition proceedings, and, therefore, he has rejected the petition. We too, upon hearing the learned Advocates and upon going through the contents of the material papers, do not find any substance in the appeal and we are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 3rd April 2008 ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To: 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District.