IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20097 of 2007 Between: Smt. Pasupuleti Audi Lakshmamma W/o late Venkata Swamy r/o Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., rep byits Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole, 3 Station House Officer, Pamur Police Station, Pamur, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring ac. 0.10 cents situate in paimashi (Old survey No. 229) corresponding to new Survey No. 199/2 (Part) of pamur village and Mandal, Prakasam District, bounded by East-site of Police quarters, south-R&B Road, West-B.V. Subbaiah Matam and North-Land of Gadi Narayana as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said property and pass such other order or orders as may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner claims rights vis-à-vis Acs.0.10 cents of land in new survey No.199/2 corresponding to old survey No.299 of Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner is the wife of late Venkata Swamy. The ﬁrst wife of Venkata Swamy, by name Smt.P.Mandamma, purchased the plot referred to above through a sale deed, dated 06.02.1950. The petitioner states that on death of Mandamma and thereafter, Venkata Swamy, it had devolved upon her and when some private individuals tried to interfere with her possession, she ﬁled O.S.No.171 of 2005 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri and the suit was decreed on 17.09.2005. The petitioner complains that the respondents are trying to dispossess her from the land by stating that it was acquired in the year 1951. A detailed counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that an extent of Acs.2.94 cents of land was notiﬁed for acquisition way back in the year 1951 and even award was passed for the entire land on 31.02.1955. It is further stated that the possession of the land was taken and police station and staﬀ quarters were constructed thereon. It is also stated that the petitioner does not have any right or claim over the land. Heard Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. If the land was not the subject matter of acquisition, there would certainly have been basis for the claim of the petitioner. The record discloses that a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published way back on 01.05.1951. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act and an award under Section 11 of the Act. Even assuming that the notiﬁcations or the award did not reﬂect the name of Smt.P.Mandamma, that fact, by itself, cannot render the proceedings void. It needs to be observed that the sale in favour of Smt.P.Mandamma took place hardly one year before the date of acquisition. Had Smt.P.Mandamma or her legal heirs been aggrieved by the said acquisition, they could have certainly initiated necessary proceedings. The notiﬁcations as well as the award have become final. At this length of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that in case the compensation is remaining in the civil Court in deposit, it shall be open to the petitioner to pursue the matter and claim the compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:13.10.2008. kdl