THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.20185 OF 2006 DATED: 17-04-2007 Between : Nalluru Padma Rao and another … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad., And 2 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.20185 OF 2006 ORDER : The petitioners claim to be the owners of Ac.4-19 cents of land situated in Sy.Nos.447/1, 447/2, 447/3, 447/4, 447/5 and 447/6 of Chillakuru Village, Chillakuru Mandal, Nellore District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 13-7-2005. A part of the said land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for digging a major distributory canal under 5th branch canal of Telugu Ganga Project. The petitioners state that they came to know about the acquisition from a notification dated 31-8- 2006 published in the local dailies by way of errata to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 24-5-2006. In the said errata, the name of one Yadanaparthy Venkata Narasa Reddy, the vendor of the petitioners, was shown as the name of the pattadar and possessor of the land in question. Pursuant thereto, the notice under Section 9 (3) and Section 10 of the Act was also issued to the said Venkata Narasa Reddy calling upon to submit the objections, if any, to the measurements and to put in a statement with all necessary particulars showing the nature of his interest in the land in question by appearing in person or by authorised agent on 22- 9-2006. Since the petitioners have already acquired title and possession of the land in question by virtue of a registered sale deed and since in the notification several discrepancies with regard to the description of the land acquired were found, the petitioners submitted their objections before the 2nd respondent on 22-9-2006. It is alleged that the respondents without considering the objections submitted by the petitioners have been taking steps to fix the stones on the land in question for the purpose of laying approach roads to the proposed canal. Aggrieved by the said action, this writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. As could be seen from the material on record, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette long back on 24-5-2006. Thereafter, an errata to the said declaration was published on 31-8-2006. It is also not in dispute that the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act was published in the month of September, 2006 itself followed by Form-7 Notice issued under Section 9 (3) of the Act. In the circumstances, under Section 17 of the Act, it is open to the respondents to take possession of the land on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioners to show that they are still continuing in possession of the land. On the other hand, even from the version of the petitioners, it appears that the steps are already being taken to lay the approach roads across the land in question which indicates that the land stood vested in the Government. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, though I do not find any justifiable reason to issue a Mandamus as prayed for, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting leave and liberty to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry pending before the 3rd respondent. The petitioners are also granted liberty to submit their objections, if any, and particulars of their claim to compensation, if not already submitted, within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which event the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17-04-2007 klp