*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA +W.P.No.908 of 2009 % 21-8-2009 # Smt.K.Bhagyamma (died) per L.R. K.Munirathnam .. Petitioner And $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 4 others .. Respondents < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar ^ Counsel for R.1 to R.4 :- The Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Counsel for R.5 :- J. Vijaya Laxmi ? Cases Referred: [1] 2009 (2) ALT 693 2 1979 (1) ALT 65 3 2008 (6) ALT 617 (DB) 4 2001 (5) ALD 815 (LB) 5 (2008) 4 SCC 695 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.908 of 2009 Date: 21st August, 2009 Between:- Smt.K.Bhagyamma (died) per L.R. K.Munirathnam .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 4 others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.908 of 2009 ORDER:- This Court issued rule nisi on 23-1-2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.1151/2009 made the following order:- “There shall be interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from his lands. However, this will not preclude the authorities from proceeding with the matter under the Land Acquisition Act for taking further steps, subject to the result of the Writ Petition.” 2. The Writ Petition was filed by one K.Bhagyamma and since the said Bhagyamma died, K.Munirathnam, the 2nd petitioner was brought on record as legal representative of the deceased writ petitioner as per order in W.P.M.P.No.20630/2009, dt.20-8-2009. Originally, the Writ Petition was filed as against R.1 to R.4. M/s.Sri City (P) Ltd., - R.5 came on record by virtue of an order made by this Court dt.20-8-2009 in W.P.M.P.No.8631/2009. 3. The original writ petitioner – K.Bhagyamma filed this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-35 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.1-13 cents in Sy.No.6/1, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.8/13, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-17 cents in Sy.No.9/5, Ac.0- 05 cents in Sy.No.10/16, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.9/17, Ac.0-08 cents in Sy.No.9/9, Ac.0-60 cents in Sy.No.17/19, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.17/4, Ac.0-08 ½ cents in Sy.No.16/16, Ac.0-10 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.14/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.17/2, Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.11/1, Ac.0-06 cents in Sy.No.11/12, Ac.0-09 cents in Sy.No.12/4, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/12, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.12/13, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/17, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.13/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.13/14, Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.13/6, Ac.0-05 ½ cents in Sy.No.14/4 and Ac.0-35 ½ cents in Sy.No.46/4 of Matherimitta village, Varadaiahpalem mandal, Chittoor District without considering the representation dt.23-12-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23-12-2006 after giving an opportunity of being heard and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. Averments in detail had been made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2179/2009 to vacate the interim order dt.23-1-2009 made by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.1151/2009 in W.P.No.908/2009. Likewise, the 5th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2658/2009 praying for vacate of the interim order aforesaid. When the vacate applications came up for hearing, the Counsel on record made submissions in the main Writ Petition and also further made a request for the final disposal of the Writ Petition itself. Hence, at the request of the Counsel on record, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally. 5. Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, at present the legal representative of the original writ petitioner, made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel would maintain that it is not as though relating to the ownership of the lands in question, the Land Acquisition Officer is unaware of the fact despite the representation made to the concerned authorities and despite the repeated requests made by the petitioner, the land acquisition proceedings were proceeded with and the Award was made granting compensation to wrong persons. The learned Counsel also specifically pointed out that when certain survey numbers are covered by the self-same sale deed making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act relating to a portion thereof and paying compensation to the third parties, without making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the other survey numbers, this would speak volumes of the conduct of the Officers concerned. The learned Counsel would maintain that in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, inasmuch as the writ petitioner is not interested in questioning the land acquisition proceedings as such now he is interested in getting the Award set aside by praying for other appropriate directions or suitable directions to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of deciding who would be entitled to the compensation, in the light of the same let the Award be set aside to the said extent and apart from the reference already made let there be appropriate directions to the competent authority to refer the matter to the other survey numbers as well covered by the self-same sale deed to be decided in accordance with law under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had pointed out to the relevant portions of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 and would maintain that in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at all. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also would maintain that while deciding the matter of this nature, the conduct of the parties also to be taken into consideration it is not as though this Bhagyamma and the present legal representative of Bhagyamma – Muniratnam, they are unaware of the proceedings, these parties also having received a portion of the compensation relating to these survey numbers, never raised any objection whatsoever and having received the compensation at a later point of time for reasons best known had made certain representations. This conduct would clearly go to show that the contentions which had been put forth by the present writ petitioner cannot be said to be bona fide contentions. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition would contend that when at the appropriate time as contemplated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act if objections had not been submitted, such parties may not be entitled to any remedy within the purview of the Act may be that such parties may be entitled to the other remedies under the General Law. Hence, at present, no such directions for further reference relating to the other survey number covered by the sale deed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act can be given by the Writ Court. /7. J.Vijaya Laxmi, the learned Counsel representing 5th respondent would maintain that though possession already had been taken, though the writ petitioner was conscious of this fact, suppressing the facts, without impleading the 5th respondent, who will be the real affected party, the interim relief of stay of dispossession had been obtained. The Counsel also would maintain that the land was acquired for the purpose of a Large Project and in view of the pendency of this Writ Petition, the other purpose of the Project is being hampered, even otherwise, in the light of the conduct of parties, this being not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition to be dismissed. 8. Heard the Counsel. Perused the material available on record and perused the respective pleadings of the parties and also the material available on record. 9. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition already had been specified supra. Since the original writ petitioner – Bhagyamma is no more, the legal representative of the said Bhagyamma is at present prosecuting the litigation. It is averred that the 1st petitioner purchased lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-35 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.1-13 cents in Sy.No.6/1, Ac.0- 15 cents in Sy.No.8/13, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-17 cents in Sy.No.9/5, Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.10/16, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.9/17, Ac.0-08 cents in Sy.No.9/9, Ac.0-60 cents in Sy.No.17/19, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.17/4, Ac.0-08 ½ cents in Sy.No.16/16, Ac.0-10 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.14/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.17/2, Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.11/1, Ac.0-06 cents in Sy.No.11/12, Ac.0-09 cents in Sy.No.12/4, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/12, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.12/13, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/17, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.13/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.13/14, Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.13/6, Ac.0-05 ½ cents in Sy.No.14/4 and Ac.0-35 ½ cents in Sy.No.46/4 of Matherimitta village, Varadaiahpalem mandal, Chittoor District, vide registered sale deed dt.7- 7-70 from her vendor. In all, the 1st petitioner was the owner of the above said lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6-19 cents and she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said lands without any interruption whatsoever from any quarter by raising various crops. It is also stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its power of eminent domain issued a notification vide proceedings G2/3557/2006 published in the Gazette on 16-3-2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said 4(1) notification the Government of A.P. sought to be acquired the lands of the 1st petitioner for the purpose of establishing an Industrial Park by creating Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It is stated that in the 4(1) notification dt.16-3-2006 1st petitioner name was not shown as owner and pattedar of the above said lands purchased by her. Thereafter the Government of A.P. issued a Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act vide proceedings Roc.No.G2/3557/2006, dt.10-11-2006 in the Gazette, even in the Draft Declaration also her name was not shown in the Pattedar column. Further it is stated that at the time of 4(1) notification issued by the respondents, she was not keeping good health and she was admitted in Hospital at Chennai. Thereafter she was bed-ridden. After coming to know about the fact that, her name was not shown in the 4(1) notification and as well as 6 declaration in the Pattedar column, her son made a representation dt.23- 12-2006 to the R.D.O., Tirupathi marking a copy to the District Collector, Chittoor bringing the mistake crept in the notification and declaration and further requests the authorities to conduct an enquiry after giving an opportunity of being heard and incorporate the name of the 1st petitioner as owner and pattedar in the 4(1) notification and as well as 6 declaration and till such time, compensation may not be disbursed with regard to the lands in question to any third parties. It is further stated that though a representation dt.23-12-2006 was made to the authorities, the respondents neither conducted any enquiry nor passed any order. The 1st petitioner had been in possession of the lands and had been cultivating the lands in question. It is also stated that the respondents are trying to dispossess the 1st petitioner from the aforesaid lands without considering her representation dt.23-12-2006 and without giving notice and conduct enquiry, when questioned the illegal action of the respondents, the respondents are openly professing that the compensation would be paid to the third parties. In such cents, being left with no other option, the writ petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim order as already aforesaid. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by R.2 to R.4, several facts in detail had been narrated and the consent given by the petitioner, Form I, III and IV, Consent Award No.11/2006, Consent Award No.12/2006, Form CC – acquittance showing the details of compensation amount received by the petitioner vide Sl.No.3 and Possession certificate – handing over of possession to the APIIC relating to Award no.11/2007 and 12/2007 also had been placed before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed, several of the facts had been specifically denied. It is stated that the writ petitioner had filed this Writ Petition suppressing the material. The petitioner had taken compensation of rs.7,97,500/- vide Demand Draft dt.4-6-2007 without protest. The possession was already taken and delivered to APIIC on 16-4-2007. The petitioner is guilty of suppressing of facts and on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati, had submitted two separate requisitions to the District Collector, Chittoor District in the year 2006 for acquiring the lands to an extent of Ac.50.58 cents and Ac.55.77 cents in Sy.No.1/1 etc., and 30/2 etc., respectively situated at Siddama Agraharam village of Varadaiahpalem mandal, for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Part (Special Economic Zone). On receipt of requisition, the District Collector, Chittoor had instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati to submit the land acquisition proposals for the lands requisitioned by the APIIC. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati without conducting field survey, had submitted separate Land Acquisition proposals for the lands requisitioned by the APIIC to the District Collector for approval. The District Collector had approved the said notifications as follows: Notification No.11/006:- The District Collector, Chittoor has approved the 4(1) notification in Roc.G2/3357/2006, dt.16-3-2006. After approval, the said Draft Notification has been published in the A.P.State Gazette Extraordinary Issue no.11/2006, dt.16-3-2006. The said Notification was also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., the Hindu and Andhra Bhoomi on 22-3- 2006. The substance of Notification was published in the locality on 19-4- 2006. As per 10(1) Account of Siddama Agraharam village, the lands covered in the petition stands in the name of Sri S.Pakeerswamy Pillai and 11 others vide patta No.72. The lands in Sy.No.8/13 and 46/4 of Siddama Agraharam village stands in the name of S.Pakeerswamy Pillai and 11 others vide patta No.1. As per Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 of sub-section (1) has to file objections, if any, within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification for the lands proposed for acquisition. In the instant case, no objections were filed within stipulated time. Before publication of Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, teams were constituted consisting Tahasildar/Deputy Tahasildar/Revenue Inspector/Surveyor supervised by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. Basing on the survey reports of the Teams, the Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the L.A.Act were submitted to the District Collector, Chittoor, and the same were approved by the District Collector, Chittoor in Roc.No.G2/3557/06, dt.10-11-2006 and it was published in A.P.State Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.11/2006 dt.10-11- 06. The contents were also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., Eenadu on 11-11-2006 and The Hindu on 12-11-2006. The substance of Declaration was published in the locality on 20-11-2006. The Requisition Department viz., the APIIC Ltd., has filed a written consent in Form-V required under provisions of the A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992, to the District Collector and Chairman, Negotiation Committee, to pass consent Award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, Form-1 Notices has required under the provisions of the A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992, have been issued to the land owners/persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition. In response to the above notice in Form-I all the land owners/persons isntd in the land have agreed for passing consent Awards and given consent in Form-III (Agreement) and in Form-IV (Affidavit) to that effect. During the negotiations under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Chittoor, the owners/interested persons have agreed for increase of 45.7% and 46.71% on the land value of Wet Lands and Dry Lands respectively and as per the rates fixed for the trees. The details of the package are as follows:- Land Value per acre for Wet Lands Market value per acre as per PV Rs.1,45,000.00 Solatium @ 30% on MV Rs.43,500.00 Additional Market Value @ 12% per annum Rs.17,500.00 TOTAL Rs.2,05,900.00 % of enhancement agreed in the negotiations 45.7% Rate per acre as per negotiations Rs.3,00,000.00 Land Value per acre for Dry Lands Market value per acre as per PV Rs.1,20,000.00 Solatium @ 30% on Market Value Rs.36,000.00 Additional Market Value @ 12% per annum Rs.14,400.00 TOTAL Rs.1,70,400.00 % of enhancement agreed in the negotiations 46.71% Rate per acre as per negotiations Rs.2,50,000.00 The Award enquiry was conducted from 16-12-2006 to 19-12-2006 at MP Elementary School, Siddama Agraharam village duly publishing of notices under Section 9 (1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act on the persons interested. The petitioner has not filed any objection petition as stated in his affidavit. Apart from publication and service of Form – 6 & 7 notices, Public notices addressing the persons interested in the land under acquisition have been issued in the Daily Newspapers as detailed below: Name of the Daily Newspaper Date of Publication Language in which published Eenadu 10-12-2006 Telugu The Hindu 10-12-2006 English Dinathandhi 10-12-2006 Tamil Vaartha 15-12-2006 Telugu The Hindu 15-12-2006 English Dinathandhi 15-12-2006 Tamil Again a final public notice has also been issued in the following Daily Newspapers (covering Chennai Edition also) calling for objections, fixing specific dates i.e., from 30-12-2006 to 5-1-2007 from the persons interested in the land under acquisition. Name of the Daily Newspaper Date of Publication Language in which published Eenadu 30-12-2006 Telugu The Hindu 30-12-2006 English Dinathandhi 30-12-2006 Tamil Vaartha 30-12-2006 Telugu Out of total extent notified Ac.50.58, the ryoths have given consent for an extent of Ac.49.96 for which consent Award was passed under Section 11(2) of the L.A.Act. For the balance extent of Ac.0.62 cents, the ryoths have not given consent, for which compulsory Award is passed separately under Section 11(1) of the L.A.Act relating to Notification No.11/2006 of Siddhama Agraharam village. The compensation amount awarded under Section 11(2) of the L.A.Act in Award No.11/07 dt.18-3-2007 for the lands contended by the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition as detailed below. Survey No. Extent in Acres Classification Name of the Pattadar as per DD Name of the Enjoyer as per DD 7/2 0.35 Wet K.Ramaiah and others Bhagyamma 7/2 3.13 Wet K.Ramaiah and others P.Sarojamma 6/1 0.19 Wet Gandla Anki Setty Katari Kuppaiah 6/1 2.29 Wet Gandla AnkiSetty P.Sarojamma 8/13 0.29 Wet P.Sarojamma Yella Ramanaiah 9.5 0.33 Wet Pillari Naidu M.Chengaiah 10/16 0.10 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma Yella Krishnaiah 9/17 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Bandali Guravaiah 9/17 0.14 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Yella Subramanyam 9/9 0.08 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Nettam Bhasker 17/19 0.30 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gunimani Munemma 17/19 0.30 Wet Pakeeruswamy Kayyala Munivelu 17/4 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Goyala Munikrishnaiah 16/16 0.19 Wet Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy Avula Raghavaiah 14/7 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gogula Munikrishnaiah 17/2 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Goyala Munikrishnaiah 17/2 0.13 Wet Pakeeruswamy Koyala Munirathnamma 11/1 0.16 235 Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma C.Munirathnamma 11/1 0.43 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma B.Guravaiah 11/1 0.10 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma M.Seenaiah 11/1 0.11 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma Reddy Muniramaiah 11/12 0.06 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai Yella Ademma 12/4 0.07 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Yella Subramanyam 12/4 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Sammana D. Vasantha 12/12 0.13 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Yella Anuradha 12/12 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Gogula Munaswamy 12/13 0.13 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Katari Bhaskar 12/17 0.14 Wet Sammana Vasanthamma 12/17 0.12 Wet Balesi Seenaiah 13/7 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gowra Thulasamma 13/14 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gowra Thulasamma 13/6 0.04 Wet Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy P.Sarojamma 13/6 0.04 Wet Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy Rathnaiah 14/4 0.11 Wet Kayuyala Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy Kayyala Krishnaiah Before publication of Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the L.A.Act, teams were constituted consisting of Tahasildar/Deputy Tahasildar/Revenue Inspector/Surveyor supervised by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. Basing on the filed inspection reports of the teams, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A.Act was published. All interested persons have attended for Award enquiry from 16-12-2006 to 22-12-2006 and stated that they are owners of the land. Further public notices on Award enquiry have been issued before the Award enquiry in the Daily Newspapers published from Tirupati, Nellore and Chennai on 10-12-2006 in Eenadu, The Hindu and Dinathandhi and on 15-12-2006 in Vaartha. In addition public notices were also issued after the Award enquiry on 30-12-2006 in the Tirupati, Nellore and Chennai editions of Eenadu, Vaartha, The Hindu and Dinathandhi calling for objections if any, before the Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. Despite of all the notices above, no counter claims and objections have come with regard to the lands mentioned above. The petitioner has not filed any objection petition dated 23-12-2006 as stated in her affidavit. The compensation amount was awarded as per the enjoyment on ground basing on reports submitted by teams before publication of Draft Declaration. Hence the compensation for the above lands was ordered to pay to the following Awarded as noted against each vide Award No.11/2007 dt.18-3-2007. Survey No. Extent in Acres Name of the Awardee Amount 7/2 1.55 0.35 1.58 P.Sarojamma W/o.Ramakrishna Reddy K.Bhagyamma W/o.Venkata Munichanga Reddy (Petitioner) Dispute between: 1.Smt.P.Sarojamma 2. Sri Kannambakam Munirathnam Reddy (Referred under Section 30) 465085.2 105000 474000 6/1 1.13 Dispute Between : 1.Smt.P.Sarojamma 2. Sri Kannambakam Munirathnam Reddy (Referred under Section 30) 339000 8/13 0.29 Yella Ramanaiah S/o.Chinnakuppaiah 87000 9/5 0.33 B.Chengaiah, S/o.Munaswamy 99000 10/16 0.10 Yella Kr5ishnaiah, S/o.Chengaiah 30000 9/17 0.14 0.15 Yella Subramanyam Bandili Guravaiah, S/o.Munaswamy 42000 45000 9/9 0.08 Natham Bhaskar, S/o.Veeraswamy 24000 17/19 0.30 0.30 Kayyala Munivelu, S/o.Munaswamy Gunimani Munemma, S/o.Subramanyam 90000 90000 17/4 0.16 Gogula Munirksihnaiah, S/o.China Venkataiah 48000 16/16 0.19 Avula Raghavaiah, S/o.Lakshmaiah 57000 14/7 0.16 Gogula Munikrishnaiah, S/o.China Venkataiah 48000 17/2 0.15 0.13 Gogula Munikrishnaiah, S/o.China Venkataiah Kayyala Munirathnamma, W/o.Munaswamy 45000 39000 11/1 0.43 0.16 0.10 0.11 Bandili Guravaiah Chittiboyana Munirathnamma, W/o.Pedda Chengaiah M.Seenaiah, S/o.Chengaiah Reddy Muniramaiah, S/o.Chinnasubbaiah 129000 48000 30000 33000 11/12 0.06 Yella Ademma, W/o.,Krishnaiah 18000 12/4 0.07 0.16 Yella Subramanyam, S/o.Gopaiah Sammanna Vasanthamma, W/o.Chengaiah 21000 48000 12/12 0.13 0.15 Yella Anuradha, W/o.Krishnaiah Gogula Munikrishnaiah, S/o.Ramakrishnaiah 39000 45000 12/13 0.13 Katari Bhaskar, S/o.Chinnaiah 39000 12/17 0.12 0.14 M.Seenaiah, S/o.Chengaiah Sammana Vasanthamma, W/o.Chengaiah 36000 42000 13/7 0.16 Goura Thulasamma 48000 13/14 0.15 Goura Thulasamma, W/o.Srinivasulu 45000 13/6 0.04 0.04 K.Munirathnam Reddy, S/o.Venkata Munichenga Reddy Dispute between: 1.Smt.P.Sarojamma 2. Sri Kannambakam Munirathnam Reddy (Referred under Section 30) 12000 14/4 0.11 Kayyala Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy 33000 Notice under Section 9(3) and 10 was served to the petitioner Smt.K.Bhagyamma on 28-11-2006 and she had attended for Award enquiry on 16-12-2006 in respect of other S.Nos.3/2B, and 57. She also given consent in Form-I and Form-III for acquisition of lands. The petitioner had received compensation of rs.7,97,500/- through Demand Draft bearing No.339186, dt.4-6-2007 along with other lands including for the land in S.No.7/2 extent Ac.0.35 cents. This is clear evidence that the petitioner knowing herself about acquisition of lands in Siddhama Agraharam village. With regard to compensation amount rs.8,25,000/- in respect of S.No.7/2, 6/1 and 13/6 referred under Section 30 of L.A.Act, it is also stated that the Demand Draft bearing No.318269 dt.29-10-2008 was drawn in favour of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti and sent through Asst. Government Pleader, Srikalahasti. It is appropriate to note that one of the interested persons in these Section 30 cases is one Sri K.Munirathnam Reddy, who is the son of the present petitioner Smt.K.Bhagyamma. Notification No.12/06:- The District Collector, Chittoor has approved the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in Roc.No.G2/3558/06, dt.16-3-2006. T said notification was published in the A.P.State Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.12/2006 dated 16-3-2006. The Notification was also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., (1) The Hindu and (2)Andhra Bhoomi on 22-3-2006. The substance of Notification was published in the locality on 19-4-2006. As per Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act any persons interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 of sub-section (1) has to file objections, if any, within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification for