HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11563 of 2011 Date:14.12.2011 Between: Smt Konda Lakshmi and another. ..... Petitioners And: The District Collector (Land Acquisition), Nalgonda District and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N.Ashok Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification, dated 30.06.2008, in respect of Ac.2-00 guntas of land in Sy.No.293/EE of Toggarrai Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioners claim to be the daughters of one Narsaiah, who was the original owner of the above- mentioned property which was proposed to be acquired by notification, dated 30.06.2008, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), for providing house sites to weaker sections. One Baleboina Palamma, the wife of the said Narsaiah and the mother of the petitioners, filed Writ Petition No.19592 of 2008, along with two other persons belonging to the neighbouring village, questioning the two separate acquisition notifications covering the lands of the petitioners therein. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 15.09.2008, whereby the notification to the extent of dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held bad. The Court, however, held that except to that extent, the notification shall remain valid and a direction was given to hold an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act in accordance with law. Baleboina Palamma filed W.P.M.P.No.3618 of 2009 for modification of order, dated 15.09.2008, on the ground that the notification under which her land was proposed to be acquired was not referred to in the said order. The said application was disposed of by order, dated 03.03.2010, wherein this Court directed that the order, dated 15.09.2008, passed in W.P.No.19592 of 2008 would cover the notification, dated 28.06.2008, also which pertains to the lands of Baleboina Palamma. Thereafter, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held. It is the plea of the respondents that Baleboina Veladri, the son of Baleboina Palamma, appeared in the enquiry and gave his no objection to part with the land if a sum of Rs.10 lakhs per acre is paid. Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29.01.2011. It is stated at the Bar that no award has been passed so far. For the first time, the petitioners entered into picture by causing a legal notice issued on 02.02.2011, wherein they have raised objection for acquisition of the land. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition in April 2011, questioning the acquisition proceedings. At the hearing, Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed on account of non-publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act within one year of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of proviso-2 to Section 6 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents opposed the above submission and stated that the Writ Petition suffers form laches. He submitted that the petitioners having never raised any objection to the acquisition proceedings at any earlier point of time cannot be permitted to seek invalidation of the acquisition proceedings at this length of time. It is the case of the petitioners that the land proposed to be acquired was given to them at the time of their marriage towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’ and that, they have become the absolute owners of the said property. Admittedly, the property was not mutated in the name of the petitioners and the name of Narsaiah, their father continues to be shown in the revenue record. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of the petitioners’ mother and their brother. If the petitioners were really interested, they would have joined their mother in filing W.P.No.19592 of 2008. Atleast after disposal of W.P.M.P.No.3618 of 2009, the petitioners did not make any effort to approach the respondents by participating in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. They remained aliens to the entire litigation till they suddenly appeared on the scene by causing legal notice issued in February, 2011, after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. If at all there is any one who is aggrieved by continuance of the land acquisition proceedings, it is only the mother of the petitioners’ who has filed the Writ Petition or atleast their brother whose name was also shown in the acquisition proceedings. Both these persons have not approached this Court with the plea that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Having regard to the above conduct of the petitioners, who slept over their rights, if any, this Court is not inclined to entertain the plea of the petitioners at this length of time to declare the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 26.04.2011, is vacated and W.V.M.P.No.3687 of 2011 is disposed of and W.P.M.P.No.14145 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th December 2011 DR