IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5432 of 2008 Between: Danthuluri Satya Chaya Devi, w/o. Sitarama Raju, R/o. D.no. 1-60, Katheru, Rajahmundry Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State rep. by the District collector, East Godavari District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Pattipadu, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action notification No. G2/8264/2007, dated 25-11-2007 and the consequential order of the 1st Respondent in Ref.No. G2/8264/2007 dated 29-2-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to set the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Notification dated 25.11.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), and the consequential order dated 29.2.2008 passed by the 1st respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that she purchased the land of an extent of Ac.3.30 cents in S.No.180/1 situated in Rachapalli village, Prathipadu Mandal, East Godavari District from the original vendor Smt.B.H.Kamala Devi for a valid sale consideration under a registered sale deed dated 15.4.2004 and she was also issued pattadar passbook on 11.10.2004 and since then she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of it. While so, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer issued the Notification dated 25.11.2007 proposing to acquire Ac.10.12 cents of land including the petitioner’s land for providing house sites to the weaker sections under Indiramma Programme. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though a Notice under Section 5(A) of the Act was issued to her vendor and other land owners, the 1st respondent-Government, without issuing any notice calling for her objection, passed the impugned order dated 29.2.2008. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. On an earlier occasion, the learned Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition was directed to produce relevant records. Today, when the matter is taken up, she has produced the records. The facts of the case are not in dispute. When the petitioner is the absolute owner having purchased the land in question and pattadar passbook have been issued to her, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have shown her name in the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, the name of her vendor, Kamala Devi, is shown. Even from a perusal of the record produced by the learned Government Pleader, it is clear that the 2nd respondent neither heard Smt.Kamala Devi i.e. the original vendor nor heard the petitioner. From the above, it is clear that the enquiry conducted is contrary to the provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act. Now that the petitioner is having knowledge about the acquisition of her land, she is hereby directed to file her objections before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such objections being filed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from her land. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ 21.04.2008 bcj