IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON’BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APEAL No.11 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/10/2006 in W.P.No.3265 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court) Between: 1 P. Ramachandra Rao S/o Bushi @ Veeranna R/o.Gollapallem East Godavari District. 2 P. Krishna Rao S/o Bushi @ Veeranna R/o.Gollapallem East Godavari District. 3 P. Suryaprakash rAo S/o Bushi @ Veeranna R/o Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 P. Venkateswara Rao S/o Bushi @ Veeranna R/o.Gollapallem East Godavari District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1 The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 State of Government of A.P. , rep.by Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad 3 Pilarisetty narayana Rao S/o Bushi @ Veeranna R/o D. No. 45-2-6, Yesuvari Street, Jagannayakpur, Kakinada-2 East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for Appellants: Mr. P.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per RSR, J) This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by original petitioners in W.P.No.3265 of 2006, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 13-10-2006. 2. The appellants claim to be the owners of the land admeasuring Ac.7.68 cents in Sy.No.54 of Gollapalem Village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District. The aforesaid land was notified for acquisition for providing house sites to weaker sections. The first respondent herein issued notification as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ for brevity) and the same was published in the District Gazette on 02-09-2003. Subsequently, a declaration was also issued under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 05-09-2003. In the writ petition, appellants have questioned the acquisition proceedings on the ground that respondents have not passed the award, as contemplated under Section 11(A) of the Act, within a period of two years from the date of publication of declaration and as such entire proceedings have lapsed. 3. At the stage of admission, the learned single Judge, having called for the original record, found that possession of the land in question was taken on 19-02-2004 and applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Prasad V. State of Uttar Pradesh[1], dismissed the writ petition. 4. In this appeal, it is argued by learned counsel for appellants that though enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act was not dispensed with, the same was not conducted in accordance with law. Further, it is submitted that declaration was not published in widely circulated newspapers as per the mandate under Section 6 of the Act. It is further argued that while recording a finding that possession was taken on 19-02-2004, no opportunity is given to the appellants. 5. We are unable to accept any of the contentions advanced by learned counsel for appellants. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was made in the writ petition only on one ground, namely that award was not passed within a period of two years from the date of declaration. With regard to various other contentions raised in this appeal, there is no factual foundation at all in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. No allegations are made with reference to the alleged defects in the enquiry and the publication of notice in the newspapers. In the absence of any allegations and factual foundation, it is not open for the appellants to raise such a plea at this stage. Lastly, it is also argued by learned counsel for appellants that no compensation was paid to the appellants. But, however, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clearly stated that 80 per cent of the compensation was offered to the appellants on 13-02-2004, before possession of the land was taken, i.e. on 19-02-2004; however, they did not receive the said amount on the ground that the market value was not arrived at correctly. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not any infirmity in the acquisition proceedings and the findings recorded by the learned single Judge. It is also further to be noticed that the land of the appellants was notified for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections and the notification was issued as early as on 02-09-2003 and possession was taken on 19-02-2004. Therefore, any interference at this stage will jeopardize the welfare scheme undertaken by the respondents. 7. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 25, 2008 GRR/MRR [1] (1993) 4 SCC 369