IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3782 of 1996 Between: 1. Cheruvu Narayana Reddy, S/o. C.Narayappa Reddy. R/o. Ranganagaripalli, Nallacheruvu, Anantapur. 2. C.Laxmidevamma, W/o. C.Narayana Reddy. R/o. Ranganagaripalli, Nallacheruvu, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The District Collector, Anantapur. 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nallacheruvu, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners, who are husband and wife, are the son-in-law and daughter of Tanakati Venkateswarlu and Narayanamma. Alleging that Tanakanti Venkateswarlu, prior to his death about the year prior to the filing of this petition, executed a registered gift deed dated 20.03.1978 in respect of the land in S.No.188/1 of Nallacheruvu in their favour and hence, are in possession and enjoyment of the said land from then and that Mandal Revenue Officer, Nallacheruvu Mandal (2nd respondent) along with his staff came to their land in S.No.188/1 and informed them that proceedings under Land Acquisition Act (the Act) have been initiated to acquire the said land for providing house sites to weaker sections of the society, and the District Collector (first respondent) issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act proposing to acquire Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.188/1 along with Ac.2.30 cents in Survey No.184-5 belonging to Paduchuri Rangappa, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act, on the basis of an ex parte report submitted by the second respondent on extraneous consideration, petitioners filed this petition to quash the proceedings for acquisition of their land in S.No.188/1, inter alia, on the ground that there is no basis to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5 A of the Act and that the proceedings for acquisition are not bona fide. The allegations, in brief, in the affidavit of the second respondent, are that proceedings for acquisition of land in S.No.184/5 and 188/1 of Nallacheruvu were initiated for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society after following the procedure prescribed under the Act, and that an award dated 28.11.1993 bearing No.6/93 was passed and the compensation awarded thereunder was sent to the awardees viz., P. Kanugondrayappa and Smt. Tanakanti Narayanamma, through demand drafts and that one of the awardees i.e. P. Kanugondrayappa received the demand draft on 06.04.1994, but the letter sent to Tanakanti Narayanamma, mother of 2nd petitioner and mother-in-law of first petitioner was returned as refused and since Tanakanti Venkateswarlu executed a Registered Gift deed dated 20.03.1978 reserving a life estate in himself and his wife Narayanamma with vested reminder to the petitioners and since Narayanamma who had a life interest in the land in S.No.188/1 was alive till the award was passed, no notice was served on the petitioners, and since the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the locality, petitioners, who are aware of the proceedings relating to acquisition of the land in S.No.188/1 and other land filed this petition with a mala fide motive though they do not have any right therein legally during the life time of Narayanamma by virtue of Gift deed dated 20.03.1978, and are continuing in possession of the acquired land by virtue of the ex parte interim orders obtained by them. 3. Petitioners did not file any reply affidavit, traversing the allegations made in the counter affidavit. 4 . The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that second respondent, with a mala fide intention and for extraneous consideration, had sent a false report for initiation of the proceedings for acquisition of the land of the petitioners and since the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and since dispensation of enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act is not for any valid reasons proceedings acquiring the land of petitioners in S.No.188/1 under the Act are liable to be quashed. 5. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition is that since the petitioners, at the time of initiation of the proceedings for acquisition, had no title over the land in S.No.188/1 and since the Narayanamma, the life estate holder did not file objections for acquisition of the land and since award in respect of the land in S.No.188/1 along with the other land was passed long prior to the filing of the writ petition, petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 6. Petitioners, who alleged that T. Venkateswarlu gifted the land and put them in possession, did not produce the Gift deed said to have been executed by Venkateswarlu in their favour, though a specific plea is taken into counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the donor Venkateswarlu reserved life estate in himself and infavour of his wife, with vested reminder in favour of the petitioners. The fact that the wife of Venkateswarlu, who is the mother of the second petitioner and mother-in-law of the first petitioner, was alive on the date of the acquisition is also not denied or disputed by the petitioners by filing a reply affidavit. Since Narayanamma was the life estate holder and since an award was passed during her life time on 28.11.1993, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no notice of the award, more so because it is not their case that Narayanamma was not living with them. Petitioners who admit the visit of the second respondent to the land and who passed on information to them about the proposed acquisition of the land, cannot be heard to say that they have no knowledge about the proceedings for acquisition of land. Since Narayanamma is related to them, she must have informed them about the notices received by her. 7. To support of the allegation made in the affidavit of the first petitioner, filed in support of this petition, that second respondent sent a report for acquisition of their land for extraneous consideration, no material is produced by the petitioners. It is well known that when allegations of such nature are made against an official, the official against whom the allegations are made has to be made a party to the proceedings to give him an opportunity to say what he has to on that allegation. But, for the reasons best known to them, petitioners did not choose to make the person against whom they made allegations, a party to the petition. So it is clear that that allegation is made only for the purpose of making allegations, and that there is no truth in the said allegation. 8. Since the award was passed as long back as on 28.11.1993, during the life time of the life estate holder of Narayanamma and since Narayanamma did not choose to question the award though she refused to receive the compensation, petitioners, who filed this petition, suppressing the factum of the passing of the award, obviously with a view to secure an interim order, are not entitled to any relief and for the fraud played by them on the Court, by suppressing the fact of Narayanamma refusing to receive the letter sent by the Land Acquisition Officer and the passing of award, they have to be ordered to pay heavy costs to the respondents. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with exemplary costs at Rs.5,000/-. ____________________ (C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J) Date: 01.09.2005 Ksn