IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20504 of 2008 Between: 1 Dasari Samba murthy, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Dr.No.5-112 Seela lanka Village, Kajulur Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Dasari Subba Rao, S/o. Samba Murthy, R/o.Dr.No.2-2-Latchi Palem H/o. Bapanapally village, Tallaravu Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, E.G.District, at Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-The Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada, 3 Mandal Thasildar, Tallaravu Mandal, East Godavari District. .....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 to issue a writ order, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in acquiring the land to an Extent of Ac.03.09 cents in Survey No.05/1 of Latchiplaem Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, with out following procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of article 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question of the petitioner herein with out due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following Order: Dasari Subba Rao is said to be the owner of an extent of Ac.3.09 cents in Sy.No.05/1 of Latchipalem Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. The ﬁrst petitioner is said to be the son of Dasari Subba Rao and the second petitioner is the son of the ﬁrst petitioner. Dasari Subba Rao is said to have executed a gift deed dated 24-06-2008 in favour of the petitioners herein in respect of the land referred to above. The District Collector, East Godavari District, the ﬁrst respondent, published a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire the said land. During the course of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners are said to have submitted their representation. Their complaint is that respondents 1 and 2 are not entertaining their representation raising objections to acquisition. It is stated that the very notiﬁcation is defective in as much as it does not reflect the true owner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The alleged transfer in favour of the petitioners by way of gift has taken place in the recent past. In the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) or in the one, under Section 6 of the Act, the names of the owners mentioned in the revenue records are indicated. However, the claims or objections can be presented not only by the persons mentioned in the notiﬁcation but also others interested in the land. Respondents 1 and 2 are under obligation to consider every objection that is raised in response to the notice under Section 5-A of the Act. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 and 2 shall take into account the representation made by the petitioners also in response to the notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act and take further steps. It hardly needs a mention that the respondents cannot take possession of the land till an award is passed after publication of the notiﬁcation under Section 6 of the Act. No order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19-09-2008 usd To 1 The District Collector, E.G.District, at Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-The Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada, 3 The Mandal Thasildar, Tallaravu Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two CD copies.