THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.20975 of 2006 DATED: 10.03.2010 Between: G. Venkata Lakshmi .. Petitioner And The District Collector (Land Acquisition), West Godavari District, Eluru and others. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the lands in an extent of 0.90 cents in R.S.No.297/1, 0.18 cents in R.S.No.297/2, 0.07 cents in R.S.No.297/3A and 0.13 cents in R.S.No.297/3B of Malleswaram Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District, having purchased the same for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2006 from one Varre Surekha and N. Padmavathi, and eking out her livelihood by cultivating the said lands. While so, the 1st respondent- District Collector, West Godavari District, issued the impugned notification dated 14.07.2006, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire the said lands for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections. The said notification is questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that though her lands were proposed to be acquired, her name was not reflected in the impugned notification as the owner of the said lands and instead one G. Satyanarayana and G. Prabhakara Rao were shown as the owners. It is her further case that the said G. Satyanarayana is none other than her father and he appeared before the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, during the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and submitted that the subject lands belong to her and not to them, but the 2nd respondent, instead of issuing notice to her, passed an order on 20.09.2006, observing that the father of the petitioner, on behalf of the petitioner, stated that the subject lands are the only source of livelihood for the petitioner, but however, acquisition of subject lands is inevitable as no Government land is available for acquisition and therefore the request of the landowner is not considered. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that the subject lands were found suitable for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections and that no Government land or poramboke land is available in the village for acquisition. It is further stated that as the records indicated one G. Satyanarayana and G. Prabhakar Rao as the occupiers and cultivators of the subject lands, after due enquiry, their names were notified in the impugned notification, and that the local enquiries also revealed that G. Satyanarayana, the father of the petitioner, purchased the subject lands in the name of the petitioner before her marriage and that the petitioner has not been residing in Malleswaram Village. It is also stated that notice under Section 5-A of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 01.09.2006, calling for her objections and asking her to attend the enquiry on 18.09.2006, and pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s father G. Satyanarayana attended the 5-A enquiry and filed objections, and the 2nd respondent, having considered those objections, rejected the same, by his orders dated 20.09.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the case of the petitioner, submits that as this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notification, the acquisition process has been stalled and, in view of the same, the Government has acquired some other lands and thus there is no necessity to acquire the subject lands at this point of time. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents supported the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that she has no instructions with regard to acquisition of some other lands in view of the interim orders of this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the record. According to the petitioner, the subject lands belonging to her were proposed to be acquired for public purpose, but however, her name was not indicated in the notification issued by the 1st respondent under Section 4 (1) of the Act. To justify this action of the 1st respondent in not indicating the name of the petitioner, the respondents have taken a stand that the records revealed one G. Satyanarayana and G. Prabhakar Rao as the occupiers and cultivators of the subject lands and therefore their names were indicated in the 4 (1) notification. They have not produced any material in proof of this stand taken by them, and moreover they have asserted that the local enquires revealed that the father of the petitioner namely G. Satyanarayana purchased the subject lands in the name of the petitioner before her marriage and that the petitioner was issued notice to attend the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and raise her objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition, and pursuant thereto, her father attended the enquiry and raised objections, which were found untenable. From this, it is obvious that the respondents have not denied the ownership of the petitioner over the subject lands. However, there is no material on record to substantiate the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was issued notice to attend the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, though her name was not indicated in the 4 (1) notification. Further, the order dated 20.09.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, does not reveal that the petitioner was issued any notice and, on the other hand, it clearly denotes that the father of the petitioner namely G. Satyanarayana, who attended the 5-A enquiry, brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent the fact that the subject lands belong to the petitioner but not to them. Even then, no steps have been taken by the respondents to put the petitioner on notice as regards the proposed acquisition. In the circumstances, as the impugned notification does not contain the name of the petitioner and even the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is conducted without notice to her, the impugned notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as the enquiry proceedings conducted under Section 5-A of the Act are liable to be set aside, so far as the subject lands are concerned, and are accordingly set aside. If the lands of the petitioners are still required to be acquired, the respondents shall issue fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, conduct necessary enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, duly issuing notice to the petitioner and calling for her objections, and pass appropriate orders and take necessary action in accordance therewith. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 10th March, 2010 IBL