THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 21200 of 2006 ORDER: A draft notification published on 16-02-2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) and the consequential proceedings in relation to the land of the petitioner in Sy.Nos.314 of Dorasanipadu Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West-Godavari District are challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.2.87 cents in the said survey number. Through the impugned notification, the Government proposed to acquire Ac.103.00 of land in different survey numbers of Dorasanipadu Village for the development of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Dwaraka Tirumala. The petitioner has referred to certain writ petitions that were filed by the owners of other lands included in the notification and the orders passed therein. His grievance is that he has not been put on notice, much less his name was mentioned in the notification. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegations. It is stated that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act and thereafter, award was passed. It is stated that as regards the lands covered by the writ petitions challenging the notification, separate proceedings are initiated and that the petitioner cannot challenge the proceedings in respect of his land at this stage. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of his client was not shown in the notifications, nor the petitioner was issued notice in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. He contends that, when the enquiry was held, though in pursuance of the directions issued in the writ petition relating to other lands, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit thereof. He submits that vast extent of land was proposed to be acquired, despite the fact that the same is not immediately needed for any specific purpose. It is also his case that the purpose mentioned in the notification itself is vague. Adverting to the plea of the respondents that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, vis-à-vis the lands of the petitioner has become final, and award was passed, he contends that those facts hardly make any difference, if there existed serious irregularity. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the order in W.P.No.8680 of 2005, since he is not a party therein. Placing reliance upon certain judgments, he submits that even if there existed any infirmity in the proceedings, they cannot be interfered, once an award is passed. The 1st respondent invoked urgency clause in Section 17(4), and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A, while issuing notice under Section 4(1) of the Act. The extent covered by the notification is more than 100 acres. It is only the owners of about 40 acres of land, that have approached this Court, raising various grounds. All the contentions on merits were repelled and only the plea in relation to Section 5-A of the Act was accepted. A perusal of the judgment discloses that no specific direction was issued, setting aside the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It has to be implied that the declaration under Section 6 stood set aside, in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners therein. Accordingly, enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted by issuing notice to the concerned individuals. The respondents rely upon the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahalakshmi Ammal[1]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the owners of the land covered by a notification cannot claim the benefit of the order passed in the writ petition filed by the owners of other lands, covered by the same notification. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Union of India and others[2]. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner in this regard does not merit consideration. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name of his client is not mentioned in the notifications. The authorities would be guided by the entries in the revenue records, that are prevalent at the time of acquisition. In case the records are not updated, incorporating the subsequent transfers, they cannot be expected to mention the names of the transferees. At any rate, this minor defect does not vitiate the proceedings. The very purpose of causing publication of notifications in the gazette, in the newspapers, and in the locality is to enable the interested persons to know about the acquisition. If the petitioner did not respond to those notifications also, the acquisition cannot be held to be illegal. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court held that even if there exists any minor defects in the proceedings, they cannot be interfered, once award is passed and possession is taken. Viewed from any angle, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-06-2010. KO [1] AIR 1996 SC 866 [2] AIR 2010 SC 1068