IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29167 of 2010 Between: U. Meharun Bee and others. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Anantapur District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Chetluru Sreenivas Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29167 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in using the lands admeasuring Ac.1.74 cents, Ac.1.75 cents and Ac.1.74 cents belonging to the petitioners respectively in Sy.No.539/B of Kanekal Village, Dharmavaram Revenue Division, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that the abovementioned lands were assigned lands given to one H. Ramappa by way of DKT patta and that the same were sold by his daughter after his death, to the petitioners. She further stated that on noticing that the alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, notices in Form-1 and 2 were issued to the legal heirs of the original assignee as well as the purchasers and that the said proceedings are still pending. She stated that since the lands are assigned lands, the petitioners, who are illegal purchasers, are not entitled to payment for compensation. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has disputed the claim of the respondents that the lands claimed by his clients are Government assigned lands. He submitted that except raising a vague plea on the basis of the purported letter of the Tahsildar, no proof is filed in support of the said plea that the lands are Government assigned lands. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no copies of the DKT patta have been filed. In the absence of the said DKT pattas, the mere ipse dixit of the respondents that the lands are Government assigned lands cannot be accepted. Before excluding the lands from the award, the respondents ought to have given a notice to the petitioners and an opportunity of being heard. The fact remains that while the lands were included in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and declaration published under Section 6 of the Act, they are excluded from the award. Therefore, I find legitimacy in the grievance of the petitioners to the extent of not giving them an opportunity of being heard and the failure of the respondents to pass an appropriate order in the event they found that the petitioners are not entitled to receive compensation. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to issue a notice to the petitioners calling for their response and take a decision after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the respondents, they shall be free to avail further remedies according to law. As a sequel, WPMP.No.37147 of 2010 is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.12.2011 ES