IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 774 of 2002 Between: D.Narasimha Reddy, S/o Late D.Achi Reddy, R/o H.No.62, Doveton Bazar, Bollarum, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, R.R.District.,Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Aquisition (Industries) R.R.District., Domalguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infra-structure Development Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, Parishram Bhavan, Bashirbagh, Hyderabad. 4 M.Narasimha Reddy, S/o Murthyam Reddy, R/o Gundlapochampally, Medchal, R.R.East., R.R.Dist. impleaded as per Court order in WPMP.NO.32443/02 dt 30.11.02 5 M.Malla Reddy, S/o Pedda Narasimha Reddy R/o Gundlapochampally, Medchal, R.R.East., R.R.Dist. impleaded as per Court order in WPMP.NO.32443/02 dt 30.11.02 6 M.Janga Reddy, S/o Late Yadi Reddy, R/o Gundlapochampally, Medchal, R.R.East., R.R.Dist. impleaded as per Court order in WPMP.NO.32443/02 dt 30.11.02 7 M.Agam Reddy, S/o Late Malla Reddy, R/o Gundlapochampally, Medchal, R.R.East., R.R.Dist. impleaded as per Court order in WPMP.NO.32443/02 dt 30.11.02 ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR POLAVARAPU SRINIVAS FOR MR R.RANGANATHAN Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for respondents 2, 4 to 7: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.3: MR K.V.SIMHADRI The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash notiﬁcation dated 06-02-2001 and declaration dated 08-02-2001 issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) respectively to the extent they pertain to the lands of the petitioner comprised in Survey Nos. 534 and 537 of Gundla Pochampalli Village, Medchal Taluq, Ranga Reddy District. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned two survey numbers. The extents of Ac.0.28 gts and Ac.1.18 gts belonging to the petitioner and comprised in the said survey numbers along with other lands were notiﬁed for acquisition by notiﬁcation dated 06-02-2001, which was published in the Oﬃcial Gazette on 24-01-2001. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and on the same day i.e. on 24-01-2001, declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made, which was also published in Gazette dated 08-02-2001. The petitioner assailed these two proceedings on divergent grounds, which include that though his name was mutated in the revenue records, and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to him, neither the notiﬁcation nor declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act respectively showed the petitioner’s name and instead the names of the legal heirs of his vendor were shown in the said two documents. He also submitted that having regard to the purpose, namely; laying of road for establishment of Apparel Export Park, dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is illegal because the purpose of acquisition is not so urgent warranting such an action. He further submitted that the notiﬁcation and declaration are issued simultaneously, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2 and 3 ﬁled separate counter- aﬃdavits. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is, inter alia, averred that in the pahani for the year 1997-98, the names of the petitioner and his family members were recorded as cultivators and not pattadars and their names written in cultivator column No.13 were struck oﬀ by the Village Administrative Oﬃcer and during the subsequent years, namely; 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, the names of the petitioner and others were recorded as cultivators and not pattadars. The respondents, therefore, sought to justify non-showing of the petitioner’s name in the acquisition proceedings. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that after the ﬁling of the writ petition, an award was passed and the petitioner made a request for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before me letter dated 18-02-2003, addressed by the petitioner to the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Central Government Health Scheme, Hyderabad, wherein while making a request to refer the issue of enhancement of compensation to the competent Civil Court, he speciﬁcally mentioned that such request is without prejudice to his rights in W.P.No.774 of 2002. Therefore, the fact of reference does not come in the way of the petitioner pursuing this writ petition. The notiﬁcation to be issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is a primary document, which sets the acquisition proceedings in motion. In a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court held that the purpose of issuing a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act is to inform the owners of the land and other persons interested therein to know that their land is required for a public purpose and proposed to be acquired and to enable them to ﬁle their objections to the proposed acquisition of their land. ( S e e Munshi Singh vs. Union of India[1] a n d Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban[2]). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the acquisitioning authority to show the name of the true owner of the property in the notiﬁcation. In the instant case, I have carefully perused the documents filed by the petitioner. In the pahani for the year 1997-98, the names of the petitioner and one Padma, W/o Krishna Reddy were shown both in Column Nos.12 and 13 relating to pattadar and enjoyer respectively. Similarly in the pahani for the year 2000-2001, their names were repeated in both the columns. The petitioner also ﬁled pattadar passbook, which was issued on 01-09-1998 in respect of various survey numbers including survey Nos.534/1 and 534/2. Therefore, these documents clearly establish that the plea of the respondents that the petitioner’s name was not shown as pattadar in the pahani for the year 1997-98 is incorrect. Even assuming that the petitioner’s name as pattadar has not been shown, the respondents clearly admit that his name is shown as enjoyer in the pahani for the year 1997-98. In the absence of any explanation much less a convincing one as to why his name was not shown as enjoyer in the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, if not as pattadar, in my considered view, the valuable property of the petitioner cannot be taken away by initiating proceedings in a casual manner without taking the required care to notify the name of the true owner of the property. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, without going into the other contentions raised by the petitioner. The notiﬁcation, the declaration and the award passed in respect of Ac.0.28 gts and Ac.1.08 gts situated in Survey Nos.534 and 537 of Gundla Pochampalli Village, Medchal Taluq, Ranga Reddy District are quashed. The learned counsel representing respondent No.3 submitted that the road has already been laid. In view of this fact, though the writ petition is allowed, I deem it appropriate in the interests of justice to permit respondent No.3 to continue to be in possession of the property in dispute. The respondents shall, however, take steps to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the above land and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.31908 of 2002 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th November, 2008 vrn [1] AIR 1973 SC 1150 [2] (2000) 7 SCC 296