IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.865 of 2008 Between: Anisetti Ganga Raju @ Pitchiyya, S/o. Late Muttayya, R/o. Yadavolu Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Sec. 4(1) notification dated 15- 12-2006 for acquiring the petitioner's agricultural land Ac. 1.09 cents in Sy.No. 771/1 Yadavolu Village, Kovvuru Mandal, West Godavari District is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the legitimate expectation and consequently to set aside the Sec. 4(1) notification dated 15-12-2006 of the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SUBRAHMANYAM KURELLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.865 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Notification dated 15.12.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.771/1 of Yadavolu village, Kovvuru Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal. Heard Sri Kurella Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. In the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that in pursuance of Notification dated 15.12.2006, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 20.05.2007 to the petitioner in Form-7 under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, and that surprised at the same, the petitioner got legal notice issued, wherein he objected to the acquisition of the land. It is alleged that the respondents dispensed with enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act and straight away issued notice in Form-7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, West Godavari District, it is averred that the land in dispute is proposed to be acquired along with larger extents of land for providing house sites to weaker sections and publication of notification and declaration was made as under: Sl.No. Mode of Publication Date of Publication of Draft Notification Date of publication of Draft Declaration 1. W e s t Godavari District Gazette 16.12.2006 25.12.2006 2. D e c c a n Chronicle daily Newspaper 16.12.2006 -- 3. Avinieetiki Sankellu daily Newspaper 17.12.2006 -- 4. The Hindu daily Newspaper -- 19.12.2006 5. V a s i s t a Times daily Newspaper -- 20.12.2006 6. Substance in the locality 25.12.2006 12.01.2007 It is further averred that in view of urgency involved, enquiry under Sec.5-A is dispensed with. It is the specific case of the respondents that all the landowners including the petitioner gave consent for acquisition and that in view of the same, notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 were issued and consent award under Sec.11 (2) of the Act was passed on 17.08.2007, that as the landowners including the petitioner have not turned up to receive the compensation amount, the matter was referred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur under Sec.30 and 31 of the Act vide letter dated 19.11.2007. It is further averred that the learned Senior Civil Judge, registered the said reference as O.P.Nos.4/2008 and 9/2008 and issued notices to the petitioner and other landowners. Sri Kurella Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was influenced by another person by name Anisetti Ganga Raju and made him affix his thumb impression without informing him the purpose for which his thumb impression was being taken and that therefore, the alleged consent given by the petitioner cannot be considered as consent in the eye of law. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that after he subscribed his thumb impression, either he has got issued legal notices to the said Anisetti Ganga Raju or to the respondents, calling upon them not to act upon the purported consent containing his thumb impression. Admittedly, the petitioner has not given any complaint to the police or initiated any criminal proceedings against the said Anisetti Ganga Raju. Therefore, this Court cannot rely upon the ipse dixit of the petitioner in the absence of any supporting material to show that he was misled to subscribe his thumb impression at the instance of third party. Having not questioned the notification and declaration at an earlier point of time and having allowed the consent award to be passed on 17.08.2007, the petitioner is not entitled to seek invalidation of the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the respondents may be directed to seek modification of two O.Ps pending before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur to include reference under Sec.18 as well. Since the scope of this writ petition does not relate to the said issue, no direction in this regard can be given, more so, when respondents passed a consent award on 17.08.2007 under Sec.11(2) of the Act. A reference under Sec.18 can be made only if a person is aggrieved by the fixation of compensation. A person, who had given consent, cannot be said to be an aggrieved person by fixation of compensation and that person cannot seek reference under Sec.18. At any rate, since this issue does not fall for consideration in this writ petition, liberty is given to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the competent authority, seeking reference under Sec.18, and on such application being received, the competent authority is at liberty to pass appropriate orders thereon. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.1035 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 19.02.2008 Dsr