IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE WRIT PETITION NO.233 OF 2007 Between: Tallapally Venkaiah and others … Petitioners And: The District Collector, Medak District and others ….. Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.233 OF 2007 ORDER: This Court issued Rulenisi on 12.02.2008. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the reply affidavit had also been filed by the respondents. Heard Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘Act’) vide proceeding No.LA1/94/99, dated 27.5.1999 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and enforceable and violative of Section 4,5,6, 11 and 11(1) of the Act and principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and pass such suitable orders. Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the contents of the reply affidavit filed by the respondents as well and would maintain that the stand taken in the counter-affidavit being unsustainable and the writ petition is to be allowed. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had taken this Court to the contents of the counter- affidavit and also placed the records before this Court and pointed out the relevant records where the consent had been given by the petitioners and would maintain that in the light of the same, the writ petition being devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard the counsel. Perused the stand taken by the writ petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the counter- affidavit and also the reply affidavit as well. Further perused the records produced by the Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The relief prayed in the writ petition had also been referred to above. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.21 guntas in survey No.266/A situated at Kulabhgoor village Sangareddy Mandal of Medak district. It is stated that so also the petitioners No.2 to 9 are the owners and possessors of agricultural lands consisting of Ac.0.21 guntas, 0.22 guntas, 0.20 guntas, 0.03 guntas, 0.03 guntas, 0.14 guntas, 0.13 guntas and 0.13 guntas respectively in survey Nos.262/A, 266/AA, 251/EE, 268/W, 267/AA, 252/EE, 252/A, and 252/E situated at Kulabhgoor village of Sangareddy Mandal, Medak district. It is further stated that in respect of the above mentioned agricultural lands, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act as amended by the Act 37 of 1923 and Act 68 of 1894 was issued vide proceedings LA1/94/99, dated 27.5.1999 for public purpose to provide the house sites to the weaker sections. It is also stated that after issuing 4(1) notification, no declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act was issued within the statutory period of one year from the date of publication of the Section 4(1) notification which is mandatory in nature. So also the provisions of Section 11 and 11(A) not complied with as envisaged in the Act and so the entire proceedings for the Acquisition of the land issued by notification vide proceeding No.LA1/94/99, dated 27.5.1999 shall lapse as null and void. It is also stated that the land acquisition proceedings are initiated in order to deprive the legitimate rights of the petitioners and the land acquisition proceedings are initiated in an arbitrary and colorable exercise of power in gross violation of Section 4,5,6, 11 and 11(A) of the Act. It is stated that the respondents have to exercise and discharge functions strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that the 4th respondent had issued notice vide letter No.664/02, dated 27.7.2005 to appear for the enquiry on 1.8.2005 at 11.00 a.m in the chambers of Joint Collector i.e., 2nd respondent. It is stated that the without giving any notice, or conducting panchanama, the respondents issued proceedings stating that the petitioner are refusing to participate in the award proceedings. It is also stated that there is alternative land in the village nearer to the land of the petitioners and the 1st respondent can lay house sites in that land instead of acquiring the land of the 1st petitioner and the other petitioners’ land and the respondents have arbitrarily chosen to acquire the agricultural lands of the petitioners and in the circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, a specific stand had been taken that it is the policy of the Government to provide shelter to the needy beneficiaries and for the said purpose, this notification had been issued. It is also stated that it is true that as per the Revenue records, he lands in Survey No.266/A Ext. 0.21 gt, 262/A 0.21 gt. 266/AA, Ext.0.22 gts, 251/EE, Ext.0.20 gts, 268/UU, Ext. 0.03 gts, 267/AA, Ext. 0.03 gts, 252/EE, Ext. 0.14, 252/A, Extent 0.13 and 252/E, Ext. 0.13 gts situated at Kulabgoor village, the petitioner are the pattedars of the land in question. It is further stated that during the special drive programme launched by the Government in the year 1999 for providing house sites to the weaker section people of Sangareddy town, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy has submitted Land Acquisition proposals on 23.3.1999 in respect of the lands of the petitioners including other lands, to a total extent of Ac.18.39 gts. Covering in survey Nos.244 to 253, 255, 256 and 261 to 269 situated at Kulabgoor village of Sangareddy Mandal for acquisition for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections of Sangareddy town, since 600 families are found eligible for house sites. It is further sated that basing on the consent given by the land owners only, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the lands from the petitioners, but not forcibly as alleged by the petitioners. It is also stated that since the consent Award was passed duly following the due procedure laid down in the Act, the required notices under section 9(1) and (10) of the Act have been published in the village, besides the individual notices as required under Section ((3) and (10) of the Act have also been issued to all the land owners, but no claims and objections received. Hence the consent award was passed under section 1(2) of the Act. In Addition to the statutory notices mentioned above individual notices have also been issued to all the land owners on 9.12.1999 to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer for Award enquiry on 17.12.1999 and after following due procedure only, the consent award was passed on 22.1.2001. It is stated that after passing the consent award, notices in Form No.(9) i.e., 12 (2) notices were also issued to all the Awardees including the petitioners herein and served on them as per the procedure by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy. In response to the 12(2) notices out of (42) Awardees, only six awardees have received the land compensation and the remaining Awardees including the petitines herein have not received the land compensation, even though they have given consent for acquisition and individual notices were given. Hence the amount was kept under civil deposits. In such circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the reply affidavit filed by the 6th petitioner, again a specific stand had been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been reiterated and further the averments made in the counter- affidavit also had been narrated. In reply to the averments made in para No.7 of the counter-affidavit, it is specifically denied that the consent award was passed duly following the due process of law as laid down by the Act. Infact even though no individual notices as required under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the respondents have issued notices to the land owners and they have no knowledge about passing of the alleged award under Section 11 (2) of the Act nor any statutory notices were issued to the individual land owners on 9.12.1999 to appear before he L.A Officers for award enquiry n 17.12.1999 and the consent award was passed on 22.11.2002. It is further stated that the petitioners are poor and land less persons having small extent of land hardly a guntas and taking advantage of their illiteracy and backwardness, had fabricated false records, even though they had not consent for passing consent award. Even otherwise the procedure of the negotiation as contemplated under the A.P. Land Acquisition Rules was not adhered to while passing the alleged consent award and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court had given careful consideration to the respective stand taken by the parties and had also thoroughly gone through the records produced before this Court and the relevant portions of the records wherein the consent given by the petitioners had been clearly reflected and it had also been pointed by the Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. On thorough verification of the records, this Court is also satisfied that due procedure had been followed by the respondent for acquiring the land from the petitioners and in as much as this is only a consent award, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Date:18.09.2009 P.S.NARAYANA,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.233 OF 2007 ORDER: Date: 18.09.2009 Gk.