The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Writ Petition No.2247 of 2010 Order: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Y.Ravindra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. With their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks declaration, by way of Mandamus, that Award No.02/2009, in File No.36/LA/Unit-5/ORR/2008, dated 15-09-2009, passed by respondent No.3, is arbitrary and illegal. In the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of plot admeasuring 375 square yards in Survey No.90/1/3 (Old No.90/1) situated at Gatchibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, and that an extent of Ac.0-01 gunta out of the said property was notified along with other lands for the purpose of formation of outer ring road junction. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), was published in the gazette on 30th April, 2008. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 03-05-2008, and consequently, enquiry proceedings were taken up and award was passed on 15- 09-2009, fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per acre. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although she is the absolute owner of one gunta of land out of the said notified land, no notices as contemplated under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were given to her before passing the impugned award, and moreover, it was recorded therein that nobody represented before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming title over the said land and no documents were available on record to determine the accurate title holder thereof, and therefore, there is no option except to refer the matter to the Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also the petitioner’s grievance that in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the names of the owners/occupants of entire land admeasuring Ac.0-38 ½ guntas were shown as T.K.Shyam, Director, AMEI Power Limited and N.Minna Reddy. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as no notice was served before passing of the impugned award, the petitioner had no opportunity either to file a claim petition or to participate in the award enquiry. At the same time, he submitted that the petitioner is not questioning the entire award and fixation of compensation @ Rs.20 lakhs per acre, and he is aggrieved only to the extent of referring the matter to the Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. It is further submitted that in number of Land Acquisition cases, when awards were passed without giving notice to the claimants, this Court has directed the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer to examine the claim and pass appropriate awards after giving notice and opportunity, of being heard, to the petitioners therein. In this regard, the learned Counsel has placed on record, one such Order, dated 26-10-2009, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10052 of 2009 and batch. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that inasmuch as the name of the petitioner did not figure in the revenue records, there was no occasion for the respondents to issue notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act to the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned award goes to show that there is no rival claim made for compensation with regard to the land in question. Merely on the ground that nobody has represented before the Land Acquisition Officer and no documents were available on record to determine the accurate titleholder of the land in question, the matter was referred to the Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. Inasmuch as the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in question by virtue of a registered sale deed, and as no opportunity was given to her to participate in the enquiry, and as she is not questioning the quantum of compensation, I deem it appropriate to quash award No.02/2009 in file No.36/LA/Unit-5/ORR/2008, dated 15-09- 2009, to the limited extent of referring the matter to the Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, and permit the petitioner to file claim petition, seeking compensation for the land in question, together with the supporting documentary evidence, before respondent No.3 within a period of four weeks from today. On such claim petition being filed, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the same and pass supplementary award, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months therefrom. Subject to the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Date: 10th February, 2010 lur