IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3 of 2008 Between: Pepakayala Tirupavathi, W/o. Mallabbai, R/o. Peda Doddigunta Village, Rangampeta Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavary District at Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer cum R.D.O., Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Rangampeta, E.G. District. 4 The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 1st respondent Ref.G2/3888, dt. 16-12-2007 which was served on the petitioner on 29-12-2007 rejecting the objections submitted by the petitioner in the 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act without affording an opportunity of personal hearing as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the order of the 1st respondent in Ref.G2/3888, dt. 16-12-2007 declaring it as without power and jurisdiction in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare Order dated 16.12.2007 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the objections of the petitioner against acquisition of her land, were rejected. By notification dated 28.06.007, issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), an extent of Ac.0.90 cents of land, comprised in Sy.No.145/2P of Peda Doddigunta village, Rangampet Mandal, East Godavari District, along with other lands, was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections. In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A, the petitioner filed her objections, which were considered and eventually rejected by respondent No.1. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed. At the hearing, the only contention, advanced by Sri K.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of personal hearing. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is specifically averred that in response to notice issued in Form-3 under Sec.5-A, the petitioner filed her objections on 31.08.2007 personally and sent a copy of objections on 01.09.2007 by registered post. It is also specifically stated that the petitioner has not attended the personal hearing on 03.09.2007. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, while denying the allegations that she failed to attend the enquiry scheduled to be held on 03.09.2007, she stated that she went to the office of respondent No.2 on 03.09.2007 along with her son, but, however, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to her. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner failed to plead, except making a vague averment that neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.1 gave her an opportunity of personal hearing, that she went to the office of respondent No.2 on 03.09.2007 along with her son and that in spite of the same, he did not give her an opportunity of personal hearing. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner came out with an improved version for the first time in the reply affidavit. The petitioner failed to file an affidavit of his son in support of this averment and give any notice to respondent No.2 in the interregnum between 03.09.2007 and 02.01.2008 when the writ petition was filed, complaining of denial of opportunity of personal hearing. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner that despite her presence on 03.09.2007 in the office of respondent No.2, she was denied the opportunity of personal hearing, more so, when this Court disposed of her earlier writ petition, viz.,W.P.No.17919/2007 with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider her objections and afford her an opportunity of personal hearing. If respondent No.2 failed to give such an opportunity of personal hearing, that would amount to contempt of order dated 19.11.2007, and the fact that the petitioner has not initiated any proceedings for violation of the said order also reinforces my conclusion that the petitioner’s version that she was not given an opportunity of personal hearing on 03.09.2007 is not correct and the same is a pure after thought. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 26.02.2008 Dsr