THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3084 of 2008 Date: 21.02.2008 Between: Jonnala Venkateswara Rao and others … Petitioners AND The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt. K.Shesharajyam Counsel for respondents: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri C.V.Bhaskara Reddy, SC HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3084 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside the notification dated 31.12.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act whereby the lands belonging to the petitioners were proposed to be acquired. Heard Smt.K.Sesha Rajyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents. By the impugned notification, the lands of the petitioners were proposed to be acquired for providing house-sites to middle income group persons under Rajiv Swagruha Scheme. In response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act, the petitioners filed their objections. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were not given an opportunity of personal hearing by respondent No.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition was directed to produce the record and accordingly, she has produced the record at the hearing today. A perusal of the record shows that on 31.10.2007, the date on which the enquiry was scheduled to be held, petitioner No.1 alongwith three others were present before respondent No.3 and the enquiry was adjourned to 7.11.2007. The record further reveals that on 7.11.2007 six persons including petitioner No.1 attended the enquiry alongwith their Advocate Sri S.R.Telidevara and their signatures were taken by respondent No.3 evidencing their participation in the enquiry. Smt.K.Sesha Rajyam submitted that the record does not reveal that respondent No.3 conducted the enquiry. I am unable to accept this contention. In fact, in the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have not disclosed the fact that they attended the enquiry on 31.10.2007 and that the same was postponed to 7.11.2007. They have also not pleaded that on 7.11.2007 though some of them alongwith their counsel were present, respondent No.3 did not conduct any enquiry. In the absence of any such grievance having been expressed and in the face of the record showing their presence before respondent No.3 on 7.11.2007, it is reasonable to presume that respondent No.3 held enquiry on 7.11.2007. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents violated the provisions of Section 5A of the Act by denying a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. As regards the order passed by respondent No.1 whereby the objections of the petitioners were rejected, I have carefully gone through the same and I do not find any infirmity therein warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4030 of 2008 filed by the petitioners seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:21.02.2008 mdaa