IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24996 of 2006 Between: 1 Chintham Reddi Chinna Venkata Subbaiah @ C.C. Venkata Subba Reddy S/o Subbaiah 2 Chintham Reddi Pedda Venkata Subbaiah s/o Subbaiah 3 Chintham Reddi Venkateswara Reddy S/o Pedda Venkatasubba Reddy 4 Chintham Reddi Kamakshiah S/o Subbaiah 5 Chintham Reddi Krishna Reddy S/o Ramaiah 6 Chintham Reddi Srinivasulu Reddy S/o ramaiah 7 Chintham Reddi Subba Rami Reddy S/o Subbaiah (All R/o Rekalakunta Village, Gopavaram Mandal Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project 7 GNSS Kadapah, kadapah District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (LA) Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II Mamillapalli, Kadapa District. 3 the Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Secrtary, Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of "Writ of mandamus" directing the respondnets to initiate Proceedings under Land Acquisition act in respect of the petitioners land and structures to an extent of Ac. 0.72 cents in Sy.No. 80/2 of Rakulakunta Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Guddapah District, and consequently directthe Respondents to pay compensation to theland and structures of the petitioners to an extent of Ac. 0.72 cents in Sy. No. 80/2 of Rakulakunta Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Guddapah District, along with the similarly placed personas and pass such other order or orders this Hon'ble Court may deems ﬁt and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:BOYARAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24996 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners are the residents of Rekalakunta Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District and they had their houses over the land in Survey No.80/2 of the Village. Part of that Village is said to have been subjected to submersion under Somasila Project. Initially, a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 20.05.1996, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. However, the notiﬁcations lapsed, on account of the fact that the award was not passed within the time prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. The petitioners approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.16639 of 2002, with a prayer to direct the respondents herein, to issue notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act and for consequential steps as regards their lands and structures. That writ petition was disposed of on 03.09.2002 directing that the lands and structures belonging to the petitioners shall not be subjected to submergence, without acquiring them. This writ petition is ﬁled with a prayer to direct the respondents to notify the land and structures over an extent of Ac.0.72 cents in Survey No.80/2 of the village. It is pleaded that the lands and structures are facing submergence. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents published a notiﬁcation, under Section 4(1) of the Act on 02.03.2007 and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is represented that the notiﬁcation under Section 6 of the Act has not been published yet and only the land belonging to the petitioners and others was notiﬁed and not the structures. Petitioners prayed for appointment of a Commissioner during the pendency of the writ petition to note the physical features of the land, on the ground that the Village itself was going to be inundated with water. A Commissioner was appointed and he, in turn, submitted a report, dated 18.08.2007, stating inter alia that the structures, as pleaded by the petitioners, are existing. The grievance of the petitioners is that there is total inaction on the part of the respondents, in concluding the proceedings under the Act, in relation to the lands and structures, and deliberately, the structures were omitted in the notiﬁcation, published under Section 4(1) of the Act. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is ﬁled, narrating the circumstances, that led to the lapse of the earlier notiﬁcations, and the factum of issuance of subsequent notiﬁcation. A dispute is raised as to the extent of land, over which the structures are existing, as well as the nature thereof. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The principal grievance of the petitioners is about the inaction of the respondents in publishing notiﬁcation, for acquisition of their properties. That stands redressed with the publication of the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act on 02.03.2007. The second limb of the grievance of the petitioners is about the non-inclusion of the structures in the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act. In this regard, it needs to be noted that the basic subject matter of acquisition under the Act is land and the mention of the super structures thereon is only incidental. It may be true that in several notiﬁcations, the structures along with the land, are mentioned. However, failure to mention the structures, by itself, does not give a quietus to the entire issue. The owners of the structures can certainly put forward their claim, during the course of award enquiry, and if, even thereafter their grievance subsists, they can work out their rights in the reference under Section 18 of the Act. This Court cannot express any deﬁnite opinion as to the nature, extent and value of the structures owned by the petitioners, over the land. At the same time, the respondents cannot ignore the structures, that existed over the acquired land. The scene now shifts to the enquiry under Section 9 of the Act, leading to passing of an award. Inasmuch as the matter has already been delayed, the respondents have to publish a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, without any further delay, and follow it up with the award enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that – (a) the 1st respondent shall take steps to publish notiﬁcation under Section 6 of the Act, in respect of the land in question, within a period of one (1) month from today. (b) During the course of award enquiry, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer shall take into account, the plea raised by the petitioners, as regards the structures, as well as the report submitted before this Court, by the Advocate-Commissioner. (c) Since an earlier set of proceedings has elapsed, on account of the delay in passing the award, it shall be ensured that the award is passed as early as possible and not exceeding six (6) months from the date of publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24996 of 2006 Date: 17.09.2008 JSU