THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.23965 OF 2008 BETWEEN: 1. Peyyala Radhamma W/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. SD 375, Bhagatsingh Nagar, Ramakrishna Puram, Mandamarri Mandal, Adilabad District, and another. …. PETITIONERS And 1. The District Collector, Adilabad, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition & G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following order: ORDER: 1. The petitioners have challenged the award passed by the 2nd respondent, viz., the Special Deputy Collector (LA, R&R), Sripada Sagar (Yellampalli) Project, Mancherial, Adilabad District, in Award No.A/43/2008 dated 23.06.2008. 2. The lands of the petitioners admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.21 guntas and Ac.2.20 guntas respectively, situated in S.No.136/EE of Gullakota Village Shivar, Luxettipet Mandal, Adilabad District, were acquired for the purpose of resettlement of Project displaced families of Gullakota Village of Luxettipet Mandal, coming under the submergence of Sripada Sagar (Yellampalli) Project, Mancherial, under draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 28.01.2008. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29.01.2008. In view of the urgency, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned Award dated 23.06.2008. It is this Award, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, appearing for the petitioners, would contend that notice under Section 9 of the Act has not been issued to the petitioners before passing the Award. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the petitioners refused to receive notices issued, but however, both the petitioners attended the enquiry and also filed their statements. The learned Government Pleader would therefore contend that the Award was validly passed and the same need not be interfered with in this writ petition. 5. The very foundation for the writ petition is that notices had not been issued and therefore, the Award is invalid. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent herein in which it was stated that when the V.R.O sought to serve notices on the petitioners to attend the enquiry on 16.06.2008, the petitioners refused to receive the notices. On the directions of the 2nd respondent, the VRO implanted the notices on the land on 13.06.2008. Despite the same, the petitioners failed to attend the Award enquiry. The learned counsel referred to the award proceedings in which the second respondent has stated that both the petitioners appeared in the enquiry but refused to give the award enquiry statement for acquiring the land. From the said inconsistent facts, the learned counsel would contend that inferentially notices were not served and therefore the award should be set aside. 6. It is true that in the counter affidavit of the second respondent it has been stated that the petitioners failed to attend the award enquiry, but there is no denial of the fact that the VRO implanted the enquiry notices on the land on 13.06.2008. In order to verify whether the petitioners were actually present during the enquiry, I have perused the record, which reveals that the petitioners have filed a statement dated 16.06.2008 before the 2nd respondent herein stating that the acquired land is situated by the side of the National Highway No.16; that the market value of the land is Rs.12 lakh per acre, and that if the compensation at the said rate was not paid they were not willing to part with the land. 7. From the aforesaid statement, which was filed before the 2nd respondent herein, it is evident that the petitioners were in fact present and participated in the award proceedings. In view of this fact, the averments made in the counter affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. Since the solitary objection with regard to the award proceedings is non-service of notice and it is now ascertained that the petitioners in fact participated in the enquiry proceedings, it cannot be said that the award is illegal. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation awarded, it is open for them to workout their legal remedies, if any, available under law. 8. Subject to the above the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 9th November, 2010 Js.