THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7748 of 2006 March 18, 2011 Between: Smt.Pushpa Bai, W/o.Gajanand ... Petitioner And Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, R.R.District And another ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7748 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.3.20 guntas in S.Nos.86 and 87 (Portion No.‘E’) of Ootpally Village of Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. The second respondent issued a notification dated 12.1.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) proposing to acquire an extent of Acs.1.16 guntas of petitioner’s land in S.No.87. Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. After issue of declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide draft notification dated 02.2.2006, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), first respondent herein, issued notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act in connection with the award enquiry. The petitioner allegedly appeared before the LAO and raised objection with regard to the measurement/extent of the land. She also sent a letter. She alleged that without considering the same, the LAO passed an award on 08.4.2006 awarding ` 5,00,000/- per acre. As required under Section 12(2) of the Act, notice of award dated 03.4.2006 was issued to the petitioner. This writ petition is filed assailing the said notice. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit as well as additional affidavit. The acquisition proceedings are admitted. The allegation that she was not put on notice with regard to actual extent of land required is denied. It is stated that after receiving notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the petitioner raised objection with regard to the extent and that on her request the land in S.No.87 was measured and demarcated by the surveyor on 28.2.2006 in the presence of representative of the petitioner and an award was passed for an extent of Acs.1.16 guntas. It is alleged that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition instead of receiving the compensation awarded. In her reply affidavit, the petitioner alleged that unless and until the petitioner is made aware as to the area or the portion of the area which has been acquired, award enquiry is unfair and by not providing necessary information the respondents acted illegally. The Counsel for petitioner would contend that the petitioner was not made known as to what portion of the land of Acs.1.16 guntas in S.No.87 was acquired and, therefore, the award is vitiated. Nextly she would submit that the notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act without localizing the land acquired is arbitrary. It is more often than not that a small bit of land out of larger extent of a person’s land is indeed proposed and acquired for public purpose. In such an event, at the stage of declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act in Form V, all the persons interested are informed with regard to the area and the sub-division map. Any person interested can always visit the office of the LAO and verify the sub-division map and seek clarification. The petitioner did not do so. Secondly the counter averment that on her request the land was measured and the area acquired was recognized remains uncontroverted even though the petitioner filed a reply affidavit. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is devoid of any merit. Furthermore, Section 18 of the Act enables a person to seek reference to the Civil Court not only with regard to the compensation awarded by the LAO but also with regard to the measurement of the land. The petitioner did not avail such a remedy. The writ petition, with the above observations, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 18, 2011 YS