THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19708 of 2006 DATED: 25.03.2010 Between: Reddi Mani Bharati and another .. Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Social Welfare) Department, Rep. by its District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and another .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioners claim to be the children of one Reddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. It is their case that their father owns land in an extent of 0.84 cents in R.S.No.80/2 situated at Chilakapadu Village, Undrajavaram Mandal of West Godavari District, and he left the village in the year 1999, after the death of their mother Smt. Nagalakshmi in the year 1998, and since then his whereabouts are not known, and thus they have succeeded to the said land. It is their further case that their natural guardian, who is none other than their grandfather, received a notice under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), issued by the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, on 13.06.2006, indicating that the subject land was proposed to be acquired, by issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections and that their grandfather was required to lodge his objections to the proposed objections before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners state that, in the said notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, one Smt. Reddi Krishnaveni was shown as the owner of the subject land and described as the wife of their father, but, in fact, she is not the wife of their father and she is no way concerned with the subject land and, even as on today, the revenue records reflect the name of their father as the owner of the subject land and pattadar passbook issued in his name is still in existence, but it is not known as to how the name of said Reddi Krishnaveni was indicated as the owner of the subject land. It is their grievance that, in spite of bringing all these facts to the notice of the 2nd respondent, by their grandfather, in the 5-A enquiry held on 17.06.2006, the same were not considered and the 1st respondent- Collector, West Godavari District, issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 03.07.2006, declaring that the subject land is needed for public purpose, which also reflected the name of said Reddy Krishnaveni as the owner of the subject land, and consequently, the 2nd respondent issued notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Act, requiring the interested persons to attend the award enquiry, but the same was not served on the petitioners, for the reason that their names were not notified in the 4 (1) notification or the subsequent proceedings. While admitting the writ petition on 26.10.2006, this Court passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.24869 of 2006, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, pending disposal of the writ petition. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit, wherein they have admitted that the petitioners are the children of Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, whose name has been recorded as pattadar of the subject land in the revenue records. They, however, stated that local enquiries revealed that the whereabouts of said Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana are not known since long time and that his first wife Smt. Nagalakshmi died and Smt. Reddi Krishnaveni is his second wife. It is further stated that the said Reddi Krishnaveni also represented that the whereabouts of her husband Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana are not known since long time and, being his wife, she succeeded to the subject land. Therefore, notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued, notifying the name of Said Reddi Krishnaveni as the owner of the subject land and notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued to her, calling for her objections to the proposed acquisition. Pursuant thereto, she attended the 5-A enquiry and requested for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre. Upon enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer found that the amount of compensation claimed was not justified considering the prevailing market value. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer issued endorsement dated 19.06.2006, rejecting the said request of her, and thereafter Section 6 declaration was issued. It is also further stated that, consequent to publication of Section 6 declaration, notices under Sections 9 (1), 9 (3) and 10 of the Act were issued, requiring the interested persons to attend the award enquiry, but nobody attended the award enquiry, including the said Reddi Krishnaveni, and at that stage, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the subject land stands in the name of one Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and his whereabouts are not known since long time. According to the petitioners, they, being the children of said Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, succeeded to the subject land and, thus, their names ought to have been notified in the 4 (1) notification and other subsequent proceedings and they ought to have been put on notice regarding the acquisition proceedings, but the respondents erroneously notified the name of Smt. Reddi Krishnaveni as the owner of the subject land and issued notices to her, who is no way concerned with the subject land. Though the respondents have taken a stand that the said Reddi Krishnaveni is the second wife of Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanrayana, the owner of the subject land, and hence her name is notified in the 4 (1) notification and other subsequent proceedings, the fact remains that they have categorically admitted in their counter-affidavit that the petitioners are the children of said Reddi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. When it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the children of the owner of the subject land and they claim to have succeeded to the subject land, being the legal heirs of its owner, it was not proper for the respondents to proceed with the acquisition process, without putting them on notice and without calling for their objections to the proposed acquisition. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned declaration dated 03.07.2006 under Section 6 of the Act and subsequent proceedings are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. It is made clear that, if the subject land is required to be acquired, the respondents shall conduct necessary enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act afresh, duly issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the said Reddi Krishnaveni, and after considering their objections, if any, that may be raised to the proposed acquisition, pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 25th March, 2010 IBL