IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 5 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/11/2008 in WP NO : 26070 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Gunturi Venkata Kumari, D/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu, R/o. Door No. 55-7/11/3, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam. 2 Gunturi Srinivasa Rao, D/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu, R/o. Door No. 55-7/11/3, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam. 3 Gunturi Rajendra, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu, R/o. Door No. 55-7/11/3, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The State Rep. by the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Narsapur, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.N.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 28.11.2008 made in W.P. No. 26070 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this court dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioners preferred this Appeal. The grievance of the appellants, who are the writ petitioners, is that without putting them on notice of the award enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act(for brevity the Act), though they are owners, and without considering their objections, orders were passed. It is also their case that their paternal uncle Sri Gunturi Suryanarayana had submitted his objections to the effect that himself and his younger brother Rama Rao were the owners of the land. The brother of said Suryanarayana died and the appellants are his daughter and sons. Since they were not put on notice, the appellants came up with the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge observed that since the names of the appellants were not reflected in the revenue records, they were neither shown in the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act nor were put on notice. The learned Single Judge observing that since the acquisition Authorities have considered and rejected the objection filed by Gunturi Suryanarayana that the appellants were small farmers and the acquisition of their lands would disentitle them from their only source of livelihood, has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants who are the L.Rs. of late Rama Rao, brother of one Gunturi Suryanarayana. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since there was no partition among the father of the appellants and his brother Gunturi Surayanarayana, the names of the appellants are not reflected in the revenue records and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to notice of enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the L.A. Act. Admittedly, the uncle of the appellants has participated in Sec. 5-A enquiry. It is case of the appellants that no partition has taken place between their father and his brother Gunturi Surayanarayana and, therefore, an opportunity should be provided to the appellants to put forth their case before the Authorities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, more particularly in view of the fact that the paternal uncle of the appellants Mr. Gunturi Suryanarayana has participated in the enquiry while the appellants who are legal heirs of Mr. Rama Rao, brother of Mr. Gunturi Suryanarayana, had no opportunity to participate in the award enquiry, while dismissing the writ petition we give liberty to the appellants to participate in the award enquiry, which according to learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, stood adjourned to 30.01.2009. With this observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy January 27, 2009 MAS