THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 13076 of 2010 Oral order: Questioning the notice dated 06.04.2010, issued by respondent No.2, namely the Tahsildar, Chagalu, West Godavari District, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of land in an extent of As. 6.00 in Sy. No. 255/2, having purchased the same from respondent No.3, who is his cousin, under an agreement of sale dated 06.02.1994 for sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and that he was also put in possession of the same. While so, he states that respondent No.1 acquired land an extent of Ac. 0.72 cents in Sy. No. 216/2 and Ac. 0.36 cents in Sy. No. 255/2 for purpose of Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme, by issuing notification dated 08.04.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Pursuant thereto, after following the acquisition process, respondent No.1 passed award granting compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- for the acquired land. Respondent No.3 having sold the land to him, the petitioner states that respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 stating that she is the owner of the land that has been acquired and requested him to pay compensation for the acquired land. Acting on the complaint of respondent No.3, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to cause an enquiry and recover the compensation amount paid from the petitioner. In pursuance of such direction, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry along with the relevant record otherwise they will file criminal case and recover the compensation amount paid to him for the land acquired. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner tried to submit his explanation to the above notice, by way of reply-legal notice dated 20.05.2010, respondent No. 1 refused to receive and acknowledge the same, and to substantiate the same, he filed copy of the reply legal notice dated 20.05.2010 sent by the petitioner through his Advocate, as material paper to the writ petition. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 without considering his reply legal notice, sent by him through his Advocate, is proceeding further in the matter, to lodge a criminal case against him. This Court by order dated 14.06.2010 while admitting the writ petition granted interim directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice. Though the writ petition is admitted and interim order granted, no counter is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No.3 filed vacate stay petition accompanied by her counter-affidavit. Respondent No.3 denied that she sold the land in question, part of which was acquired by respondent No.1, for Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme, to the petitioner, much less under the agreement of sale. She contended that it is she and not the petitioner, who is the owner of the land in an extent of Acs. 6.49 cents, party of which was acquired by respondent No.1. She denied that she consented for payment of compensation for the acquired land to the petitioner and contended that the petitioner by producing forged documents, wrongfully claimed compensation for the acquired land. She contended that upon coming to know that the petitioner has fraudulently claimed compensation for the acquired land as if he is the owner thereof, she represented to respondent No.1 on 19.11.2009, followed by another legal notice dated 28.12.2009, and acting on the same, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 02.03.2010 calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry and thereafter, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry along with the record, but the petitioner instead of producing the same, filed the present writ petition. Hence, she prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. Though the petitioner contends that he is the owner of the acquired land, having purchased the same from respondent No.3 under agreement of sale and was also put in possession and as such he is legally justified in receiving the compensation for the land by respondent No.1 for Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme, the same is specifically disputed by respondent No.3 and it is her contention that she never sold the land in question, part of which was acquired by respondent No. 1 for Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme. She further contended that even though the petitioner is not the owner of the acquired law, he fraudulently representing that he is the owner of the acquired land, claimed the compensation. It is her further case that on coming to know of the fraud played by the petitioner in claiming compensation, she represented to respondent No.1, and acting on her complaint respondent No.1 issued notice followed by the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2, calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry, but the petitioner did not appear for enquiry. A reading of the impugned notice would disclose that respondent No.3 is the owner of the acquired land and that the petitioner received the compensation and did not pay the same to his sister, namely respondent No.3, and therefore, respondent No. 1, namely the Special Deputy Collector, Tadipudi Lift Irrigation, had directed him to conduct an enquiry and recover the compensation amount from the petitioner, and for the purpose of conducting enquiry, he called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 15.04.2010 along with the relevant record, failure which they will file criminal case against the petitioner. Though the impugned notice calls upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 15.04.2010, it is the case of the petitioner that even though he tried to submit his explanation to the impugned notice by way of reply-notice through Advocate, respondent No.2 did not receive the same. Considering this stand taken by the petitioner, this Court directed the appearance of respondent No.2. As directed by this Court, respondent No.2 appeared in person. Though the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied that the petitioner has tried to submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice, but considering the material filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, which disclose that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show cause notice by way of reply-legal notice through his Advocate, and having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, who dispute the ownership of the acquired land against each other, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.2, namely the Tahsildar, Chagalu, West Godavari District, is directed to consider the explanation, said to have been submitted by the petitioner by way of reply-legal notice through his Advocate, copy of which is annexed to the writ petition, by providing opportunity of hearing to respondent No.3 also and in the light of the material that may be produced by the petitioner and respondent No.3, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 29th October, 2010 KSR