HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21907 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of an extent of 393.3 square yards at Door No.1-6-141/33 in Survey No.287 of B.Madaram, Suryapet of Nalgonda District. It is his case that his father purchased an extent of 0.03 ¼ hectares of land in Survey No.287 under sale deed dated 17.10.1979 from his predecessor in title, Ananthula Papaiah and Rama Narasaiah, sons of late Ramaiah, for valuable consideration; he had got it registered, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Suryapet, vide document NO.1293 of 1979; on his father’s death on 28.1.1989 he succeeded in title and made an application on 30.11.1999 requesting that his name be mutated in the records; and the fourth respondent, vide proceedings dated 26.6.2001, informed him that his name had been mutated in the records maintained by it. The first respondent, with a view to acquire the property for the purpose of laying 4/6 lanes road, appointed the second respondent as the Land Acquisition Officer; notice in Form No.VII dated 20.8.2009 was issued inviting claims from persons shown in the schedule; and with regards the petitioner’s land, which was also under acquisition, notice was issued in the name of Balaji Work Shop which was being run by the petitioner’s tenant, Sri D.Venkanna. The petitioner would apprehended that, since his name is not reflected in the notice, passing of an award might result in compensation being paid to his tenant though he was the rightful owner of the property being acquired. A counter affidavit is filed stating that the matter is still at the PV stage; during the earlier enjoyment survey no person was available at the location of the property and, as per the writing on the sign board, the name was noted as Balaji Work Shop; the notice was, therefore, handed over to Sri D.Venkanna who was running the Work Shop taking the house on rent; Sri Venkanna had, in turn, handed over the notice to the petitioner as per his deposition dated 16.11.2009; soon after the award is passed compensation would be paid to the petitioner; possession would be taken only after the award was passed and not prior thereto; though the property was notified in the name of Balaji Work Shop compensation would be paid only to the owner of the property; during the latest enjoyment survey the name of the petitioner was incorporated as per the deposition given by Sri D.Venkanna on 16.11.2009 and, since the petitioner’s name has now been incorporated in the latest enjoyment particulars covered by the Survey Team, compensation would be paid to the petitioner along with other land owners, as per Enquiry, after passing the award. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner’s apprehension of compensation being paid to his tenant and not to him is not well founded. Since no award has as yet been passed, ends of justice would be met if the writ petition is disposed of directing that, in the light of the averments of the second respondent in the counter affidavit dated 7.1.2010, compensation be paid to the petitioner along with all other awardees to the extent to which the petitioner is the owner of the land and building under acquisition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 15-3-2010 Note: CC by ten days B/O RRB/asp