IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18499 OF 2008 Between: Chandana Ramesh and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18499 OF 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer, which reads as under: “May be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the 4(1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act in Ref.No.B1/22/07, dt. 17-1-2007 to acquire the lands of the petitioners 2 to 4 to an extent of Ac.3.58 cents in Sy.No.167/2 of Srikrishnapatnam (V), Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District as vague without containing the names and other particulars of the petitioners 2 to 4 and also declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent Ref.B1/22/07, dt. 28-6-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside all further proceedings in pursuance of the 4(1) Notification in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioners 2 to 4 claim that they are the owners and possessors of land covered by Survey No.167/2 of Srikrishnapatnam Village in Rajanagaram Mandal of East Godavari District. An extent of Ac.3-58 cents of land out of the aforesaid Survey Number was notified for acquisition for the purpose of digging main channel of Venkatanagaram Pumping Scheme. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) in Form - 2A was issued in Reference No.B1/22/07, dated 17.01.2007. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.6399 of 2007 questioning the Notification mainly on the ground that there were no valid grounds to dispense with the enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Act. This Court, by order, dated 04.02.2008, allowed the Writ Petition in part by quashing the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act with a further direction to the respondents to conduct an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Consequent to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.6399 of 2007, the respondents have conducted enquiry and the second respondent passed orders under Section 5-A of the Act on 28.06.2008 in Reference No.B1/22/07. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning again the notification, dated 17.01.2007, in Reference No.B1/22/07 and the further order of the second respondent – Special Collector (Land Acquisition), dated 28.06.2008, in Reference No.B1/22/07. 4. The petitioners mainly attack the validity of the notification, dated 17.01.2007, and also the order, dated 28.06.2008, on two grounds viz., 1) though petitioners 2 to 4 are the owners and possessors of the land, their names were not notified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and; 2) in spite of the directions of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, enquiry was conducted without issuing any notice to the petitioners and order, dated 28.06.2008, was passed in Reference No.B1/22/07. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Pushkar Lift Irrigation Scheme Unit – 2, Peddapuram. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.6399 of 2007, notices under Section 5-A of the Act were issued to the petitioners by the third respondent, but the petitioners refused to receive the same, and as such the notices were served by affixture in the field. It is further stated that another copy of notices were sent by registered post on 28.04.2008; the same were acknowledged by petitioners 1 and 3; and the notices in respect of petitioners 2 and 4 were returned by the postal department with a remark as incomplete address though they were sent to the address given by them in the previous Writ Petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents. 7. Though it is the allegation of the petitioners that names of petitioners 2 to 4 did not figure in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, they are aware of the proceedings and they have filed W.P.No.6399 of 2007 earlier before this Court. Merely on the ground that their names did not figure in the notification, by itself is no ground to invalidate the notification. Having filed W.P.No.6399 of 2007 in earlier round of litigation and failed to respond to the notices issued under Section 5-A of the Act, it is not open to the petitioners to question the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act only on the ground that the names of petitioners 2 to 4 did not figure in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is a provisional notification, and if petitioners 2 to 4 have acquired right and title to the property, they can very well claim compensation by participating in the Award enquiry proceedings. 8. With regard to the second ground, namely, that the notices were not served on the petitioners in the enquiry conducted under Section 5- A of the Act, it is clear from the counter affidavit that in spite of sending notices to the petitioners, they have refused to receive the same. In view of the refusal, the respondents fixed the notices in the field by affixture. Further, there is yet another round of attempt made by the respondents to serve notices on the petitioners by registered post with acknowledgement due. Such notices were served on petitioners 1 and 3, and with regard to petitioners 2 and 4, they were returned with an endorsement as incomplete address. At this stage, it is to be noticed that all the petitioners together approached this Court and in view of the refusal and further service of notice on petitioners 1 and 3, it cannot be said that petitioners 2 and 4 are not aware of the enquiry proceedings being conducted under Section 5-A of the Act. At their instance, this Court, in W.P.No.6399 of 2007 directed the respondents to conduct enquiry. In spite of giving such an opportunity, petitioners by refusing to receive notices, failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The land of petitioners 2 to 4 admeasuring Ac.3-58 cents, which is notified for acquisition, is part of the total land admeasuring Ac.64-14 cents notified for the purpose of Pumping Scheme. For the aforesaid reasons, having not participated in the enquiry in spite of an opportunity given to the petitioners, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which warrants interference on the grounds argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J September 06, 2011 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P.No.18499 OF 2008 September 06, 2011