IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION Nos.10052, 10054, 16313, 16736, 17414 and 18031 of 2009 W.P.No.10052 of 2009: Between: Garoju Sai Lekhraj, S/o.Ranga Chary and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.10054 of 2009: Between: Sada Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.Sri Malla Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.16313 of 2009: Between: K.Satyanarayana, S/o. K.Ramaswamy and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.16736 of 2009: Between: K.Vittal Reddy, S/o. Late K.Ganga Reddy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.17414 of 2009: Between: S.Manoj Kumar, S/o. Late S. Rajalingam ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS W.P.No.18031 of 2009: Between: Smt. Ch.Kalpana, W/o.Ch. Malla Reddy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION Nos.10052, 10054, 16313, 16736, 17414 & 18031 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed challenging the awards made by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit-V, ORR Project, HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, respondent No.3 herein. 2. Several of the facts had been narrated in the respective affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. 3. Counter affidavits had been filed. 4. The proceedings under challenge had been pointed out and submissions at length had been made as to how notice in accordance with law had not been served and how certain vague observations had been made. It is also stated that no award copies, as such, had been served on the respective writ petitioners as required under law. 5. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioners in this batch of writ petitions had specifically pointed out to a portion of proceedings No. LA/Unit – V/20/ORR/06, dated 04-05-2008 in W.P.No.10052 of 2009, wherein it is specified thus: “The general notice as required U/s. 9(1) & 10 of the LA Act has been issued and displayed at prominent places. The individual notice as required U/s. 9(3) & 10 of the LA Act has been issued while fixing date on 08-06-2006 for award enquiry and got served on the concerned. But the notified Pattedar/interested neither appeared nor filed any documents in support their claim before the LAO. As such it is not possible for the LAO to determine their title over the lands under acquisition. Thus the ownership is not clear.” 6. Similar portions had been pointed out in other writ petitions also and the learned counsel would maintain that unless notice is served and opportunity is given to produce the documents the determination of compensation and its payment cannot be made in accordance with law. Learned counsel also submitted that the writ petitioners are prepared to produce the relevant documents before respondent No.3, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit-V, ORR Project, HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, for verification. Let respondent No.3 verify the documents of the writ petitioners and also their co-owners and co- parties or other interested persons and take appropriate decision in this regard, in accordance with law. 7. No doubt certain submissions were made that the procedure under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, “the Act”) also had not been followed. It is needless to say that the further steps, if any, under Section 18 of the Act also may be followed in the event of respondent No.3 being satisfied on the documents produced by the writ petitioners at the apportionment period, which may be made by respondent No.3 in this regard and further steps, if any, to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. A further request is made to the effect that the concerned Land Acquisition authority, respondent No.3, may take sufficient time. It is needless to say that these are the matters of land acquisition proceedings, which are required to be disposed of at an early date. Let respondent No.3 take appropriate steps in this regard in accordance with the Act and also as per the view expressed supra by this Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J October 26, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/O.MD