THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20703 of 2007 Date: 22.02.2008 Between: Challagulla Kavitha … Petitioner AND The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ramchandra Reddy Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20703 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to acquire the extent of 95 cents of land comprised in survey No.154/2 of T.Ch.R.Palem village, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari district in pursuance of notification dated 29.4.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). Heard Sri Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. The petitioner alleged that there was no proper publication of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, inasmuch as the same was published in a newspaper called ‘Ratnagarbha’ which had no circulation in the area and that therefore, the petitioner had no knowledge of its publication. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that the impugned notification was published not only in Ratnagarbha, but also in Andhra Prabha on 29.4.2007 and that both these newspapers have good circulation in the area. She also submitted that a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act, fixing 18.5.2007 as the date of enquiry and that the enquiry is not yet completed. In view of the above submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, I am satisfied that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is not yet completed, I deem it proper to direct respondent No.2 to issue notice to the petitioner to file her objections and till receiving the objections and hearing the petitioner in person, respondent No.2 shall not proceed further with the proposed acquisition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26795 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22.02.2008 mdaa