IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3191 of 2007 Between: 1 Palla Chandrakala, W/o. Narayana Murthy, R/o. 24-5-30/1, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 2 Chilukuri Narasimha Murthy, s/o. Seetharamayya, R/o. Kandrika, Via Angara, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Vardhaneedi Bhaskara Bhagyalakshmi, W/o. Nagar Malleswara Rao, R/o. D.No. 25-5-29, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more fully in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring all the proceedings relating to acquisition of land an extent of Ac.1-00 in S.No. 231/1A Part situated at Duggauduru Village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District Under Sec. 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 vide proceeding in Ref.No. B1/1041/2006, dated 28-10-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural purspose) Act 2006 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: An extent of Ac.1.00 of land in survey No.231/1A of Dugguduru Village, Kajuluru Mandal, East Godavari District was notiﬁed for acquisition on 26.10.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners are the owners of diﬀerent extents of land in that survey number. In response to a notice issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners submitted their objections stating inter alia that they are small farmers and that there is uncertainty as to the identity of the land proposed to be acquired. The District Collector, the ﬁrst respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 05.01.2007, discussing the objections raised by the petitioners and rejecting the same. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 08.01.2007. This was followed by an award, dated 17.02.2007. The petitioners challenge the proceedings vis-à-vis their land, on several grounds. It is stated that though a speciﬁc objection was raised as to the identity of the land that was proposed to be acquired, it was not dealt with, at any stage. The second ground of attack is that the petitioners are small farmers and the ﬁrst respondent rejected the same by making a reference to other properties, without any mention to the alleged properties owned by them. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the sub-division of the land sought to be acquired was made and the boundaries thereof were also indicated. The respondents also state that the petitioners did not turn up in the award enquiry and the amount is in deposit with the second respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. No serious legal inﬁrmity is pointed out in the notiﬁcation published under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The ﬁrst respondent conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and a detailed order, dated 05.01.2007, was passed, dealing with the objections raised by the petitioners. This was followed by an award, dated 17.02.2007. It is strenuously contended before this Court that the respondents did not demarcate the land clearly and that resulted in an uncertainty as to who among the petitioners is the aﬀected party. It is also asserted that the possession of the land has not been taken as yet. Even assuming that there is some uncertainty about the identity of the land, it is not diﬃcult for the petitioners to seek clariﬁcation from the respondents. The record discloses that Ac.1.00 of land with definite boundaries was acquired. The identity of the land, at this stage, becomes relevant, only in the context of claiming compensation. If the identity of the land is not clear, the petitioners can, certainly, require the respondents to provide necessary information and thereafter, make claim for payment of compensation. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to seek clariﬁcation from the respondents as to the location of the land, which is acquired, and thereafter, to receive the compensation, without prejudice to their right to seek enhancement. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 11.09.2008. kdl