THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.1047 of 2009 Dated 22nd June, 2011 Between: Kunche Chalapathi Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notification in R.C.G4.4786/2008, dated 09.11.2008, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), whereunder the extent of Acs.2.05 cents of land in Survey No.216/1 of Ayyavari Rudravaram Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District is proposed to be acquired. This Court on 10.06.2011, while passing the following the order in W.V.M.P.No.2726 of 2009, directed the writ petition to be posted ‘for dismissal’ on 13.06.2011: “When the case came up for hearing on 21.04.2011, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the counsel for the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the case was adjourned. On 07.06.2011, when the case was called, there was no representation for the writ petitioner. Even today, when the case is called, there is no representation. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The specific ground on which the present writ petition has been filed is that the petitioner’s land is proposed to be acquired for providing house sites under Indiramma Scheme by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). But a perusal of the impugned notification belies this plea. Far from dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, it is specifically mentioned therein that the Collector has authorised the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, to perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5-A of the Act. Indeed, in the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Gudivada, it is specifically mentioned that following the notification issued under Section 4(1), Form-III notice was issued on 20.11.2008 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his objections and that in response thereto, the petitioner has submitted his objections on 10.12.2008. It is further stated that after considering the objections, respondent No.1 has passed the order on 19.02.2009 rejecting the petitioner’s request for exclusion of the land in question from the proposed acquisition. From the above averments, which remained uncontroverted, the petitioner has come to this Court with false plea that the enquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with apart from suppressing the fact that he has filed the objections even before approaching this Court. For the abovementioned reasons, interim order dated 28.01.2009 is vacated. WVMP is allowed and W.P.M.P.No.1332 of 2009 is dismissed.” Accordingly, in pursuance of the direction given on that day, the writ petition was posted for dismissal on 13.06.2011. When the case was taken up on that day, Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that the petitioner made wrong statement regarding dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, apart from not disclosing the fact that he has in fact submitted his objections in pursuance of the notice under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereupon, the case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel to obtain instructions from his client in this regard, while indicating that the Court may impose costs of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner. Today, the learned counsel has placed before the Court demand draft for Rs.5,000/- obtained in the name of the Member Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority towards costs that were proposed to be imposed on the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and stalled the land acquisition proceedings, having regard to the corrective steps taken by him as above, I am not inclined to proceed against him for his misdemeanor. Inasmuch as an order was stated to have been passed under Section 5-A of the Act by the District Collector on the objections filed by the petitioner, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. The petitioner is however left free to avail appropriate remedy in the event further steps are contemplated by the respondents. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The Registry shall forward the demand draft produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the Member Secretary, A.P.State Legal Services Authority. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd June, 2011 VGB