HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.5346 of 2009 Date : 19-4-2011 Between : Gopal Kishan Agarwal and another .. Petitioner and Special Deputy Collector-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad. .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy for Sri Sharad Sanghi Counsel for respondents : The Advocate General for Sri Y.Ravindra 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 proceeding with acquisition of Ac.2-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.180 (Sy.No.180/A) of Pedda Shapur village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri C.B.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Sharad Sanghi, for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for Sri Y. Raveendra, for the respondents. The petitioners claimed to have purchased Ac.2-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.180 (Sy.No.180/A) of Peddashapur village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from T.Bikshapathi and others under registered sale deed dated 14-9-2007, that consequent on purchase of the property, the petitioners have applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued by the Tahsildar. It is further claimed that the petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records as early as 1-12-2007 itself and pahanies for the year 2007-08 had shown their names. The petitioners pleaded that in the first week of March 2009, the officials of the respondents came to the above mentioned lands and tried to take measurements and physical possession of the property. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that a part of the said property was under acquisition. Therefore, they have filed this Writ Petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1 wherein it is inter alia stated that proceedings for acquisition of the lands were initiated for development of HADA road on Bangalore National Highway at Palmakul village connecting Outer Ring Road, that after following due process of law the lands in various survey numbers including the ones in Sy.No.180 were acquired for development of the said HADA road, that basing on the entries in the pahani for the year 2004-05, the names of the persons have been notified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"). It is further stated that the draft notification was published on 27-2-2008 and Form-3 notices were issued by fixing 28-4-2008 for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that the petitioners have not filed objections to the proposed acquisition. It is further stated that after considering the objections filed by the owners of the other lands, the Collector rejected the same and proceeded with the acquisition proceedings culminating in publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and passing of award on 2-3-2009. It is further stated that out of the total extent of Ac.21-36½ guntas, award was passed for an extent of Ac.21-35½ guntas, excluding Ac.0-01 gunta in Sy.No.182 which is occupied by an existing road. On account of the interim order of this court, possession of Ac.0-25 guntas in Sy.No.180 was not taken and the balance land was taken possession and handed over to the requisitioning Department on 18-5-2009 over which the development wing of HMDA has taken up the road work and completed the same leaving only the extent of Ac.0-25 guntas over which the petitioners are making their claim. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that even though his clients have purchased the property under a registered sale deed on 14- 9-2007 and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued on 1-12-2007, their names were not published in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and therefore the acquisition proceedings have got vitiated. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of this court in Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao and another Vs. Land Acquisition Officer [1]. While opposing the above submission, the learned Advocate General submitted that even though the petitioners have purchased the property on 14-9-2007 and pattadar passbooks were issued on 1-12-2007, the revenue record was not mutated by the time the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued. In support of his submission, the learned Advocate General referred to the copy of the pahani filed by the petitioners which shows that the same was signed by the Village Revenue Officer on 2-4- 2008, i.e., subsequent to the publication dated 27-2-2008 of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned Advocate General further submitted that a large chunk of the land was acquired for the purpose of laying a road connecting the Outer Ring Road and that the petitioners own only an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas and that even if they have participated in the enquiry, there would not have been any perceptible change in the decision to proceed with the acquisition which is in overwhelming public interest and therefore no prejudice is caused to the petitioners on account of not publishing their names in the notification. Alternatively, the learned Advocate General submitted that even in the absence of publication of names of the petitioners, the extents, the survey numbers and the names of their predecessors in title were published apart from making publications in the locality through which the petitioners should have come to be aware of the proposed acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that the predecessors in title of the lands have filed their objections in respect of their lands and that all those objections were rejected and the acquisition proceedings were completed. The learned Advocate General placed reliance on the Judgement of the Supreme Court in May George Vs. Special Tahsildar and others [2] a n d Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao (1-supra) in support of his submission that once the award has been made, procedural violations such as non-issuance of notice under Section 9 of the Act would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. In R.Veera Raghava Prasad Vs. District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another [3] this Court held that the object of issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is to make all the persons interested in the land to be aware of the proposal to acquire the land, that even if the names of the registered owners are not mentioned in the notification as persons interested, they are not precluded from filing their objections and on such objections being filed, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the objections so filed by all the persons who are interested in the lands irrespective of whether their names are shown in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act or not. It was however held that merely on account of the reason that the names of the registered owners are not mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the same cannot be ipso facto invalidated unless it is pleaded and proved that any prejudice on account of the same is caused to the owners of the land. No doubt, this court in Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao (1-supra) held that mere non-mutation of the names in the revenue records does not offer a reasonable excuse for the Land Acquisition Officer to ignore the names of the actual owners of the property, that the Land Acquisition Officer is expected to gather information from the Sub-Registrars to know whether any registered sale transactions have taken place in respect of the property before the same is notified for acquisition and that mere absence of mutation in the revenue records does not absolve the Land Acquisition Officer of the obligation from collecting the necessary information as to the true owner of the property at the time of issuing the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition laid down in Gubbala Chinna Ganga Rao (1-supra). As held by this court in R.Veera Raghava Prasad (3-supra) whether non-mentioning of the names of the registered owners of the properties in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act vitiates the whole acquisition proceedings and whether the land owners were able to establish causing of prejudice on account of such non-publication of their names depends upon the facts of each case. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the acquisition is proposed for an overwhelming public purpose i.e., for laying of a connecting road to the Outer Ring Road. The petitioners’ land forms part of a small portion of the larger extent of Ac.21-35½ guntas. The objections of all other land owners filed in the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Act were rejected. In the face of these admitted facts, in my considered opinion, even if the petitioners were given an opportunity of being heard, there would not have been any change in the decision to go ahead with the acquisition proceedings. Considering these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioners failed to make out a case of prejudice. Moreover, an award was passed by the time the Writ Petition was filed. If this court interferes with the acquisition proceedings at this stage, the prejudice that would be caused to the public interest would far outweigh the prejudice that the petitioners are likely to suffer on account of acquisition of their land. After a careful consideration of the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the acquisition proceedings which are already completed do not deserve to be interfered with at this length of time. The learned counsel for the petitioners alternatively submitted that though the respondents have notified Ac.0- 25 guntas of land for acquisition, the actual extent of land utilized by them is Ac.0-37½ guntas and that his clients may be permitted to make an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the proper market value of the land and the true area which is utilized by the respondents. The learned Advocate General fairly stated that if the petitioners make such an application, the respondents would refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act to the competent Civil Court. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without interfering with the acquisition proceedings, with liberty to the petitioners to file an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act within one month from the date of receipt of this order. If such an application is filed, the respondents are directed to refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 17-3-2009 is vacated and WPMP No.6974/2009 and WVMP No.5608/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date: 19-4-2011 AM [1] 2009(1) ALD 438 [2] CA.No.2255/2006 [3] 2008(3) ALD 98