THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22323 of 2008 Dated: 16.09.2010 Between: 1. Sri Penumalla Challa Reddy and 2 others. … Petitioners And 1. The Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, KSEZ, Kakinada, East Godavari District, and 3 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22323 of 2008 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the absolute owners of agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.12 cents in Sy.No.383, Ac.4.34 cents in Sy.No.383 and Ac.0.53 cents in Sy.No.386/2 respectively situated in Ramanakkapeta Village, U. Kothapalli Mandal, E.G. District. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the above said lands is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded by the petitioners that on 10.10.2008 when the respondents came to their lands and attempted to dispossess them, on enquiry they came to know that their lands are sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for formation of Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It is alleged no notices were served at any point of time and they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings and therefore the impugned action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that the lands in question being double cropped wet lands, they are liable to be exempted from the acquisition for formation of SEZ. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector, it is explained that the 4 (1) notification was published on 3.1.2006 and the same was published in daily newspapers dated 4.1.2006. The substance was also published in the locality on 4.1.2006. Thereafter the draft declaration was published on 29.5.2006 and the same was published in two daily newspapers dated 4.6.2006 and 29.4.2006. The substance of draft declaration was published in the locality on 4.1.2006. Initially the lands in question were excluded from the award dated 13.12.2006 on the basis of the representation of the ryots that they are wet lands. Subsequently it was found that the lands were classified as dry lands in the revenue records and therefore the lands were also included and an award was passed on 25.2.2008. It is stated that though notices were issued for enquiry under Section 5-A and also the award enquiry the petitioners refused to receive the notices and did not participate in the proceedings. Therefore the award amount was kept under revenue deposits and the possession of the land was taken on 2.4.2008 and 21.4.2008 and the same was handed over to the Co-ordinator (Revenue), SEZ, Kakinada. A Reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners disputing the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and pleading that the petitioners are still continuing in possession of the land in question. An additional plea has been taken in the Reply affidavits that the Kakinada SEZ is nothing but a private body and therefore the impugned proceedings initiated for acquisition of the lands in question without following the procedure provided under Part-VII of the Act are illegal. The contention that the formation of SEZ is not a public purpose has been considered in detail in W.P.Nos.19941 and 28012 of 2008 and by a common order delivered today, the contention was rejected and the Writ Petitions were dismissed. Hence, the impugned proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated on the said ground. So far as the allegation that no opportunity was given to the petitioners either in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act or in the award enquiry under Section 11 of the Act is concerned, as noticed above, the allegations have been categorically denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit and it is pleaded that the petitioners have deliberately refused to receive the notices. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction on the basis of mere affidavits. Be that as it may, this is a case where Section 4 (1) notification was published long back in January, 2006 and the draft declaration was made on 29.5.2006 and even the award passed on 25.2.2008. Thus the acquisition proceedings came to an end and the writ petition is filed at a belated stage in October, 2008 cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.09.2010 gbs