The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.982 of 2010 Date: 20-12-2011 Between: Bayapalli Ramalinga Reddy ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Prl.Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Akkam Eswar for Mr.B.Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition 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. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside award No.16, dated 16-04-2008, concerning Ac.1-76 cents of land in Survey No.698/2 of Poluru Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned land, which was acquired for providing house sites to the weaker sections of Poleru Village. The petitioner pleaded that no notice was issued for holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and the petitioner was kept in dark about the whole acquisition proceedings. It is also averred that service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act is mandatory and that no notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned award is passed. The petitioner further averred that his land is facing the main road of Nandikotkur to Nandyal road; that uncultivable land of large extents belonging to influential people is available and that the respondents have, with a malafide intention, acquired his land. A counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.1, wherein it is inter alia stated that draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was approved by the District Collector on 28-09- 2007; that the draft notification was published in the District Gazette, two daily newspapers and the locality on 29-09- 2007, 04-10-2007, 06-10-2007 and 20-10-2007 respectively and; that notices under Section 5-A of the Act in form- III were issued to the land owners and interested persons on 30-09-2007, informing that an enquiry, under Section 5-A of the Act, will be held on 30-10-2007 and that interested parties can file their objections against the proposed acquisition. It is further averred that no objections were received against the proposed acquisition and accordingly, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the District Collector on 08-11-2007 and published in the Kurnool District Gazette, two daily newspapers and the locality on 12-11-2007, 15-11-2007, 17-11-2007 and 30-11- 2007 respectively; that notices under Sections 9 (1) & 10 of the Act were published in the Village on 22-03-2008, apart from causing service of individual notices under Sections 9(3) & 10 of the Act by affixture on 02-04-2008; that as the petitioner refused to receive the notice, the same was served through affixture on the survey stone of the proposed land and on the door of the residential house of the petitioner in Pulimaddi Village of Nandyal Mandal; that award enquiry was held on 02-04- 2008, which the petitioner failed to attend; that the award was passed on 16-04-2008; that notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioner by affixture on the survey stone of the proposed land and on the door of the residential house of the petitioner; that the petitioner has not turned up to receive the compensation, which was kept in revenue deposits; that the Tahsildar, Nandyal, has taken possession of the acquired land on 05-05-2008 under the cover of Panchanama and; that the land was handed over to A.P.Housing Corporation for taking up housing scheme under Indiramma Programme. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as no notices have been issued, the entire award is vitiated. I do not find merit in this submission. The petitioner failed to controvert any of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit, which conclusively establish that the respondents have followed the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Act for publication of notification under Section 4 (1), enquiry under Section 5-A, publication of declaration under Section 6, and issuance of notices under Sections 9(1) & 10 and 9(3) & 10, before passing the award. The petitioner, having not responded to any of the steps taken by the respondents before passing the award, cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings on the purported ground of absence of notice. Even in the absence of individual notices, the petitioner was not precluded from filing his objections in response to the public notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act and participating in the award enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Even after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner failed to question the same and allowed the award to be passed. In the face of these uncontroverted facts, the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the impugned award nearly two years thereafter. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and hence, the same is dismissed. As a sequel, interim order, dated 28-01-2010, is vacated and WVMP.No.5498 of 2010 in/& WPMP.No.1229 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 20th December, 2011 LUR