THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6940 of 2001 06.2.2008 Between: B.Krishnam Naidu, S/o.Vengama Naidu And others … Petitioners and The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition), Tirupati Urban Development Authority, Tirupathi And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6940 of 2001 ORDER: Three petitioners are residents of Pandurangavaripalle village of Chandragiri Mandal in Chittoor District. They filed the instant writ petition assailing the notification issued by second respondent under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), dated 18.12.1992, and Award No.1 of 1993, dated 16.6.1993, passed by first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The case of petitioners, in brief, is that they are owners of land admeasuring Acs.0.22 in survey No.202/2 situated at Vedantapuram village of Tirupathi Rural Mandal in Chittoor District. Inter se ownership rights among petitioners, is also mentioned, but it is not necessary to refer the same. Be that as it is, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued to acquire the said land for sites and service programmes by Tirupathi Urban Development Authority (TUDA). An award was also passed on 16.6.1993. Petitioners allege that ten days prior to filing of writ petition, officials of TUDA tried to interfere with their possession. Then they came to know about the proceedings under the Act and filed the instant writ petition. They allege and contend that their names were not mentioned in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and that they were not given notice of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and that declaration under Section 6 of the Act. They further allege that notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10(1) of the Act were also not issued to them, though their names were incorporated in 10(1) Adangals and other revenue records. They, therefore, seek a direction to set aside the Award as being contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Special Tahsildar of TUDA filed counter affidavit opposing writ petition. Details of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act are communicated. It is further stated that notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act was issued as well as notice under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act was published, and pattadar, Sri K.Gopalaiah, has received notice of enquiry, but he did not attend enquiry. Award was passed on 16.6.1993 and possession was taken on the same day. The land was handed over to Planning Officer of TUDA. Counter affidavit is filed on 29.10.2001 duly serving a copy thereof on learned Counsel for petitioners, but no reply affidavit is filed. This shows that counter averments stands proved, as there is no rebuttal of the same. Secondly, admittedly, notification was issued on 09.11.1992 and Award was passed on 16.6.1993. Curiously petitioners, who claim themselves to be in possession of the land and also claim that their names were entered in revenue records, filed writ petition on 11.4.2001. Insofar as notices are concerned, under Section 9(3) of the Act, when Collector publishes/issues notice requiring all persons interested to attend enquiry and also issues notice under Section 10(1) of the Act, it is sufficient compliance with provisions of law. In such a case, petitioners cannot be heard to say that they were deprived of the property contrary to law. A perusal of counter averments would belie any such contention. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ February 06, 2008 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS