Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.17151 of 2007 Dated 28th July, 2011 Between: Nekkanti Aruna …Petitioner And Government of A.P., reptd by its Secretary, (Social Welfare Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G.Krishna murthy Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to acquire land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.1-36 cents in Sy.No.99/3 of Gandredu Village, Pedapudi Mandal, East Godavari District, in pursuance of notification vide Ref.No.G2/3149/2007, dated 29.05.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and declaration, dated 17.07.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the above noted land. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that an extent of Ac.0-55 cents out of a total extent of Ac.1-36 cents was gifted to her by her grandmother Smt Gunnam Venkayamma, Wife of Kasi Viswanatham, vide registered gift deed, dated 19.08.2006, and the remaining extent of Ac.0-81 cents was bequeathed in her favour under a will by the original owner- late Smt Manyam Kousalya, who is her paternal aunt. The said Manyam Kousalya is stated to have died on 02.02.2006. The petitioner has filed a copy of pattadar passbook on 24.09.2004 in order to substantiate her plea that she is the recognized owner of the property in question. It is her further plea that while she had no notice of whatsoever of the proposed acquisition, she came to be aware of such proposal only after she has received the notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act through a messenger on 06.08.2007. Questioning the acquisition proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held on 06.07.2007; that the land owners have refused to take the notice at the time of service; that therefore, the notices were served by duly affixing in the land under acquisition in the presence of witnesses as per rules in vogue; that the land owners have neither attended the enquiry nor filed the objections on the date of enquiry; that therefore, it was construed that there was no objection for the proposed acquisition of land; and that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was accordingly issued on 17.07.2007 which was published in the newspapers and the locality on 27.07.2007, 28.07.2007 and 31.07.2007 respectively. At the hearing, Sri G.Krishna murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective as the name of the petitioner, who is the reputed owner of the property in question, is not published in the notification and instead, the names of the predecessors in title namely Rimmalapudi Ramulu and Yarlagadda Sai Rama Krishna were shown in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that no notice of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was served on his client, thereby she is deprived of the opportunity of personal hearing. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents opposing the above submissions contended that mere publication of wrong names will not by itself vitiate the acquisition proceedings. He has further submitted that even though an opportunity was sought to be given to the petitioner as she refused to receive the notice and hence, the same was affixed over the land under acquisition. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner was the lawful owner of the property in question as on the date of acquisition. Therefore, ordinarily they are expected to have published her name in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act so that she would have had an opportunity of filing her objections. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, while mere non-publication of the names of the true owners of the property by itself may not vitiate the acquisition proceedings in all cases, such a lapse would be fatal in cases where the true owner complains of lack of knowledge and service of purported notice leading to denial of opportunity in the enquiry to be held under Section 5-A of the Act. In the case on hand not only that the name of the petitioner is not shown in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, but the pleadings of the respondents even as regards the service of notice of the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on the petitioner are too vague. As noted above, it is their stand that the land owners have refused to take the notices for the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. While using the phrase ‘land owners’, the respondents failed to point out as to who are the land owners. It is not in dispute that one of the two original land owners by name Manyam Kousalya, who executed the will in favour of the petitioner, is no more. Unless the respondents have come out with the specific plea that even though the petitioner’s name was not shown in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, nevertheless the respondents tried to serve the notice on her for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, their plea that the petitioner was afforded proper opportunity cannot be countenanced. After all, the power of eminent domain is ex-propriatory in nature as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. Such a power needs to be exercised in a fair, proper and transparent manner. The petitioner cannot be denied her valuable rights over the agricultural lands for the sake of providing house sites to others by denying her proper opportunity in the enquiry to be held under Section 5-A of the Act, which is described as the heart of the Act (see Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai[1] and Radhe Shyam Vs. State of U.P.[2]). On a careful consideration of the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is deprived of valuable opportunity of being heard in the enquiry said to have been held under Section 5-A of the Act. On that short ground alone, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is quashed. The respondents are given liberty to issue a notice to the petitioner calling for objections to the proposed acquisition and after giving her personal opportunity of being heard, the respondents may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 28th July, 2011 DR [1] (2005) 7 SCC 627 [2] (2011) 5 SCC 553