THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.21303 & 21296 of 2011 Dated 20th December, 2011 Between: K.Rama Subbamma …Petitioner (W.P.No.21303 of 2011) And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by District Collector, Kurnool District and others …Respondents (W.P.No.21303 of 2011) Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Rama Mohan Mahadeva Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since both these writ petitions raise identical issues, they are heard and being disposed of together. Before proceeding further, it needs to be noted that in the cause title of W.P.No.21303 of 2011, the name of K.Chinnapa Reddy is shown as petitioner in the writ petition. At the hearing, it has come out that the said name was wrongly shown in the place of Smt.K.Rama Subbamma, W/o Adinarayana Reddy, and even though correction was made in the copies served on the Government Pleader’s office, the cause title in the Court record has not been corrected. The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct cause title by substituting the name of Smt.K.Rama Subbamma for the name of K.Chinnapa Reddy. In both these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is that even though the lands admeasuring Ac.0.19 cents, Acs.5.82 cents and Ac.1.54 cents in Survey Nos.1525, 1527 and 1528 respectively belonging to the petitioner in W.P.No.21303 of 2011 and the land admeasuring Acs.4.21 cents in Survey No.1526 belonging to the petitioner in W.P.No.21296 of 2011 of Nosam Village, Sanjamala Mandal, Kurnool District have been notified for acquisition vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), no award has been passed. It is the case of the petitioners that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published for the purpose of Srisailam Right Branch Canal and that while the above-mentioned lands have been notified, their names have not been shown therein. That one of the family members of the petitioners, by name, Smt.K.Eswaramma filed W.P.No.19109 of 2007 questioning the said notification. This Court disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage by order, dated 10.09.2007, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners therein without following due process of law. The petitioners further pleaded that respondent No.2 issued notice, dated 05.12.2009, under Section 5-A of the Act and possession was taken thereafter, but compensation has not been paid. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.21303 of 2011, wherein it is inter alia stated that the above-mentioned lands are Government assigned lands and that the sale deed, dated 17.04.1967, under which, the property is stated to have been purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners is an invalid document as the assigned land cannot be sold. It is further stated that initially the lands were notified under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, but in view of letter, dated 27.03.2010, of the Tahsildar, Sanjamala Mandal, wherein it is stated that the lands are Government assigned lands covered by D- form pattas, that award was passed excluding the said lands vide award No.21/2009-2010, dated 31.03.2010, and that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has disputed the claim of the respondents that the lands claimed by his clients are Government assigned lands. He submitted that except raising a vague plea on the basis of the purported letter of the Tahsildar, no proof is filed in support of the said plea that the lands are Government assigned lands. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the counter affidavit has not referred to the details of the purported D- form pattas, such as, the beneficiaries under the pattas and the dates on which those pattas were issued. No copies of the D-form pattas have been filed. In the absence of these details, the mere ipse dixit of respondent No.3 that the lands are Government assigned lands cannot be accepted. Before excluding the lands from the award, respondent No.3 ought to have given a notice to the petitioners and an opportunity of being heard. The fact remains that while the lands were notified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration published under Section 6 of the Act, they are excluded from the award. Therefore, I find legitimacy in the grievance of the petitioners to the extent of not giving them an opportunity of being heard and the failure of respondent No.3 to pass an appropriate order in the event he found that the petitioners are not entitled to receive compensation. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petitions are allowed by directing respondent No.3 to issue a notice to the petitioners calling for their response and take a decision after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by respondent No.3, they shall be free to avail further remedies according to law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, the interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th December, 2011 VGB