IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26778 of 2007 Between: G.Suryanarayana Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26778 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 07.11.2007, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were rejected by respondent No.1, as illegal, and consequentially to set aside the said order. An extent of Ac.4.41 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.77/2-B, 77/2-E and 77/2-G of Lakshmaneswaram village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District, was proposed to be acquired under Notification dated 20.04.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). In response to the notice issued under Sec.5-A of the Act, the petitioner submitted his objections. According to the petitioner, on the scheduled date of enquiry, i.e. on 17.05.2007, he and his son Sri G.Satyanarayana, Advocate went to the office of respondent No.2 to substantiate their objections and as respondent No.2 was not available, no enquiry was held and that the office of respondent No.2 informed them that the further date of enquiry will be intimated to them later. The petitioner averred that without any such intimation being made about the next date of hearing, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order, whereby he rejected the objections. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by respondent No.1 on 07.11.2007 is not preceded by any enquiry, and that therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside. The learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition, who produced the record, stated that the record reveals that neither the petitioner nor his son was present in the office of respondent No.2 on the scheduled date of enquiry, i.e. on 17.05.2007, and respondent No.2 had, in fact, noted the said fact on the file. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In paragraph-4 of the affidavit, the petitioner averred as under; “I submit that the notice in Form-3 dated 30.04.2007 shows that the enquiry will be held on 17.05.2007 on the objections, accordingly, myself and my son Sri G.Satyanarayana, Advocate went to the office of the 2nd respondent to substantiate my objections, as the 2nd respondent is not available, no enquiry is held and the office of the 2nd respondent informed that they will intimate the date of enquiry but no notice whatsoever has been issued thereafter.” In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated as under: “In reply to the averments in para-4 of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner and his son went to the Office of the 2nd respondent on 17.05.2007, that the 2nd respondent is not available, no enquiry is held and the Office of the 2nd respondent informed that they will intimate the date of enquiry that no Notice whatsoever has been issued thereafter is not at all correct. The petitioner or his son did not attend the Award enquiry on 17.05.2007 when the Land Acquisition Officer has enquired into the objections filed by the petitioner against the acquisition of the land.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner and his son were not present on the date of enquiry, the same would have been mentioned by respondent No.1 in his order and that his failure to refer the absence of the petitioner in the office of respondent No.2 gives raise to a presumption that the petitioner was very much present and that the stand of respondent No.2 in this regard is not correct. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from his own statement made by respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit, the file produced by the learned Asst.Govt.Pleader contains the following noting: “None have attended the enquiry. Hence the enquiry has been conducted basing on the objections already filed by the petitioner Sri G.Suryanarayana Rao. As per the revenue records he is owner, his daughter name was not there in the records. Obtain a detailed report from the Tahsildar Narsapur and put up to the Collector. Sd/xxx” The above mentioned noting was made on 17.05.2007, i.e., the date on which the enquiry was scheduled to be held. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 for extraneous reasons would have fabricated the file. Mere non- reference of petitioner’s absence by respondent No.1 in his order, would not give raise to the presumption, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would have been present on the date of enquiry. Having carefully perused the pleadings and the record, I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of respondent No.2 that on the date of enquiry, the petitioner was not present. As the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity in the enquiry held under Sec.5-A, the respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has not argued any other point. In the premises aforementioned, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.34956 of 2007, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 08.02.2008 Dsr