THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.18717 of 2006 DATED: 10.03.2010 Between: Konda Chittemma .. Petitioner And The State rep. by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.34/2 and 0.51 cents in Sy.No.34/4 of Inapuru Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District, by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 16.05.2006 executed in her favour by her mother. While so, the 2nd respondent- District Collector, Krishna District, issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the land in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.34/2 of Inapuru Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, belonging to the petitioner, for providing house-sites to landless poor. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act does not reflect her name as the owner of the land and, instead, one Avuthu China Subba Reddy is shown as the owner of the land, and that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been dispensed with, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act, and pursuant thereto the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer has been contemplating to take possession of her land, without affording her an opportunity to raise her objections as regards the proposed acquisition of her land. While admitting the writ petition on 11.09.2006, this Court passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.23533 of 2006, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, pending disposal of the writ petition. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that the subject land was found suitable for acquisition for providing house-sites to weaker sections and, since the name of Avuthu China Subba Reddy is recorded as the owner of the subject land in the revenue records and as the records revealed that he was issued pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the subject land, his name was indicated in the 4 (1) notification. It is further stated that though initially the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act was dispensed with, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act, but later, in view of the directions of the District Collector to conduct 5-A enquiry, the 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice to the said Avuthu China Subba Reddy on 25.08.2006 asking him to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.09.2006 and raise objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. Accordingly, the said Subba Reddy attended the 5-A enquiry on 12.09.2006 and filed objections, which were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and found untenable. Further, it is stated that either the name of the petitioner or the name of her mother, who is said to have bequeathed the subject land in favour of the petitioner, have not been recorded in the revenue records as the owner or enjoyer of the subject land. It is, however, stated that all the persons interested in the land proposed for acquisition can claim for compensation, during award enquiry being conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, though their names were not notified in the draft notification and draft declaration, and compensation will be paid to the true landowner after perusing the documents, and thus the petitioner is also at liberty to attend the award enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer and establish her title to the subject land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. While it is the case of the petitioner that her land is proposed to be acquired, without notifying her name in the 4 (1) notification and without issuing her notice, it is the case of the respondents that the name of Avuthu China Subba Reddy is recorded in the revenue records as the owner of the subject land and, therefore, his name was notified in the 4 (1) notification and his objections were called for under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit refuting the stand taken by the respondents. However, to prove her case that she is the owner of the subject land, the petitioner filed a copy of the registered gift deed dated 16.05.2006 executed by her mother, bequeathing the subject land in her favour. Considering the circumstances, as the purpose of issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act is to make all the persons interested in the land proposed for acquisition aware about the proposal of its acquisition and as the proceedings pursuant to 5-A enquiry have been stalled in view of the interim orders of this Court, I deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the 5-A enquiry to be conducted by the respondents afresh and establish her title to the subject land and also raise objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to conduct enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, duly issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the said Avuthu China Subba Reddy and considering the material to be furnished by them in proof of their title to the subject land as also their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 10th March, 2010 IBL