HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.6490 of 2008 Date: September 20, 2011 Between: A.Mallikarjunudu, S/o.Hanmanna … Petitioner And The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Bheema Project, Mahabooobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the respondents-authorities in showing the names of respondents 4 to 6 herein as pattadars in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.14.10 guntas and Ac.13.52 guntas in Sy.No.56 and 57 respectively of Aloor village at Sl.Nos.50 & 51 of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide proceedings No.D2/144/2008, dated 07.02.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The aforesaid lands were notified under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of Rylam Padu balancing reservoir under Jawahar (Netteru Padu) Lift Irrigation Project Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the said land having succeeded the same from his father and his name is recorded as pattadar in the revenue records. It is his grievance that, without any valid reason, the names of respondents 4 to 6 figured in the aforesaid notification as pattadars of the said land. On the other hand, it is the claim of the respondents- authorities that respondents 4 to 6 were conferred with ownership rights under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950; in that view of the matter their names are correctly figured in the notification as pattadars. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is a provisional notice and that will not determine the rights of the parties for the purpose of award of compensation. While it is the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the land in question, on the other hand it is the claim of respondents 4 to 6 that by virtue of the ownership rights granted under Section 38-E of the Act, they became owners. In view of grant of ownership rights under Section 38-E of the Act, it cannot be said that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has been wrongly issued by showing respondents 4 to 6 as pattadars of the land in question. Further, the issue as regards to who is entitle to grant of compensation is a matter which needs to be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer by examining the rival claims in the enquiry to be conducted. In the circumstances, while holding that there is no illegality in the impugned notification, I dispose of the writ petition keeping open to the parties to put forth their respective claims for compensation, for the land in question, before the respondents and in such an event I am sure that such claims will be considered by the respondents independently based on the material to be produced during the enquiry. No costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 20, 2011 MRR