HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3875 of 2007 28.01.2008 Between: Smt. A.Naga Tripura Sundari and others … Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3875 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notification, dated 08.08.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), consequential proceedings, dated 03.10.2006 issued under Section 5A of the Act and declaration, dated 06.06.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act, whereunder lands admeasuring Ac.3.76 cents and Ac.0.62 cents comprised in Survey Nos.238 and 239/2 respectively of Mudunuru Village, Vuyyuru Mandal, Krishna District are proposed to be acquired. Petitioner No.1 was the registered owner of the property under acquisition. She claimed to have executed a registered gift deed, dated 28.07.2006 for an extent of Ac.3.76 cents in favour of petitioner No.2, who is allegedly deaf and dumb and suffers from 80% physical disability. Petitioner No.3 owns an extent of Ac.0.62 cents, which is also proposed to be acquired. In response to notice, dated 03.10.2006 issued under Section 5A of the Act, petitioner No.1 allegedly filed objections stating that her son is physically disabled to the extent of 80% apart from being deaf and dumb and that she executed registered gift deed to enable him to eke out his livelihood. Petitioner No.1 claimed that without considering her objections, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in respect of Ac.3.76 cents and this is assailed in this writ petition. She also questioned the proposed acquisition of the agricultural land, without its conversion for non- agricultural purpose as required under the Andhra Pradesh (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006. Heard Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the outset, it is required to be stated that challenge to the acquisition on the ground of non-conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purpose shall fail in view of judgment, dated 28.12.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.18881 of 2006 and batch, wherein a similar contention was rejected by this Court. The only other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the hearing, is that though petitioner No.1 gifted the property in favour of petitioner No.2, who is suffering from physical disabilities and objections were raised to that effect, the respondents have not excluded the extent of Ac.3.76 cents of land gifted in favour of petitioner No.2. In the counter affidavit filed by Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Nuzvid Division, Krishna District, it is inter alia mentioned that the petitioners are wealthy landlords and that the Land Acquisition Officer considered the objections in the award enquiry held on 08.01.2007 and the competent authority rejected the same as not tenable. It is further stated that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 own and possess Ac.10.58 cents of land, petitioner No.3 owns and possesses Ac.4.96 cents of land, inspection of the lands by Tahsildar, Vuyyuru took place on 23.05.2006 and land acquisition proposals were submitted to District Collector in the month of July, 2006. It is further specifically alleged that on coming to know about the proposed acquisition, petitioner No.1 transferred the property in favour of petitioner No.2, who is deaf and dumb, in order to avoid land acquisition proceedings. It is also averred that petitioner No.3 attended the award enquiry and gave his willingness for acquisition of land by the respondents on condition of payment of Rs.15 lakhs per acre. The petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit controverting the allegations contained in the counter affidavit. From the facts narrated in the counter affidavit, it is quite evident that after the inspection was made by Tahsildar, Vuyyuru in connection with the proposed land acquisition proceedings in the month of May, 2006, petitioner No.1 executed the registered gift deed in favour of petitioner No.2, evidently with a view to plead sympathies for exclusion of the land from acquisition on the ground that petitioner No.2 is a physically handicapped person. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners, to a query of the Court, stated that petitioner No.2 is the only son of petitioner No.1. The very fact that though petitioner No.2 is the only issue to petitioner No.1, still she executed registered gift deed also lands credence to the claim of the respondents that transfer of land in favour of petitioner No.2 by way of registered gift deed was only for avoiding land acquisition. At any rate, even assuming that the transfer in favour of petitioner No.2 is bona fide, the same by itself would not invalidate the acquisition proceedings, because it is mentioned in the counter affidavit that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have an extent of Ac.10.58 cents and only an extent of Ac.3.76 cents of land belonging to them is proposed for acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to plead any legal infirmity in the proposed acquisition of the lands belonging to petitioner Nos.1 and 2. As regards petitioner No.3, he failed to file any reply affidavit controverting the allegations mentioned in the counter affidavit. The petitioners have also not denied the allegations contained in the counter affidavit that award bearing No.24/2006-07 was passed on 09.02.2007 and the award amount was deposited in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada under Section 31(2) of the Act. They have also not denied the fact that possession of the land in question was taken on 09.02.2007. After an overall consideration of the facts of the case, I am satisfied that the respondents have not committed any jurisdictional or legal error in acquiring the lands of the petitioners. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.4943 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th JANUARY, 2008. kvni