THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.675 of 2009 Date:11.04.2011 Between: Yepuri Venkata Srinivasa Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by District Collector, Hyderabad and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Venkata Siva Prasad Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings in Rc.G4/5452/2007 dated 03.10.2008 of respondent No.1, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s objections for acquisition of land admeasuring Acs.0.65 cents in R.S.No.82/7 of Kandulapadu Village, G Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. I have heard Sri K.Venkata Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The abovementioned land along with other lands were notified for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society under Indiramma programme (II phase). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 17.11.2007. In response to the objections called for by the respondents, the petitioner filed his objections on 17.12.2007. By order dated 31.12.2007, respondent No.1 rejected the petitioner’s objections and published declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 09.01.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4497 of 2007. This Court, by order dated 25.03.2008, allowed the said writ petition setting aside the proceedings dated 31.12.2007 and remanded the matter to respondent No.1 for consideration of the petitioner’s objections afresh by holding enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Accordingly, fresh enquiry was held by respondent No.1 and he has once again rejected the petitioner’s objections along with the objections filed by other similarly situated persons, by the impugned proceedings. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of an extent of Ac.0.95 cents forming part of the land notified for acquisition, an extent of Ac.0.30 cents was gifted to the petitioner’s sister Smt.Peddi Kanaka Durgamma and that recently the petitioner has executed a gift deed in her favour. Respondent No.1 rejected this plea by stating that the names of the encroachers were notified as per the entries in the revenue records and that all the interested persons would be issued notice under Section 9(3) of the Act and that they can also participate in the award enquiry. On the plea of the petitioner that he is having a small holding and that if his land is acquired, he will be left with no other properties, respondent No.1 has given a specific finding that the petitioner has got Acs.10.16 cents in R.S.Nos.11, 12/1, 28/5, 6, 29/2, 51/1, 82/7 and 87/3 of Kandulapadu village, Acs.1.50 cents in R.S.No.74 of Chegireddipadu village and Acs.4.16 cents in R.S.Nos.222 and 224 of Vellaturu village. The petitioner has not disputed this finding. In my opinion, mere fact of the gift stated to have been executed by the petitioner would not make the acquisition illegal because even according to the petitioner, even though the purported gift was made 25 years back, a gift deed is executed recently. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the gift deed is not registered. Therefore, notifying the name of the petitioner as the owner of the land by the respondents cannot be termed as illegal. At any rate, as rightly pointed out by respondent No.1, all the persons interested will be issued notices in the award enquiry. As such, I do not find any merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner. No other contention has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 22.01.2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.835 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.4272 of 2009 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th April, 2011 GHN