THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4051 of 2006 Dated:24.02.2011 Between: G.Sivakumari. ...Petitioner And State of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4051 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.04 cents in survey Nos.474/1B, 474/2A, 474/3 and 474/4 of Reddigudem Village of Nuzivid Mandal in Krishna District. It is her case that the land was proposed for acquisition for providing house sites to backward classes. The petitioner gave consent on condition of receiving Rs.2,50,000/- as market value. It is her further case that all the persons who are to be provided house sites purchased sites at Rs.5,000/- per cent. Therefore, though notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), were issued, the proposal was dropped. Yet again, without issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the respondents issued and published a declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the newspaper dated 24.09.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner contends that acquisition of the land without issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and straightaway publishing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent. It is stated as follows. The land of the petitioner was proposed for acquisition for providing house sites. The notification was published in the gazette dated 04.03.2004 followed by declaration on 10.03.2004. These were published in the local newspaper also. As the awards were not passed, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act lapsed. Again the Collector approved the draft declaration on 25.07.2005 and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in Krishna District Gazette Issue No.36/2005, dated 05.08.2005. The declaration was also published in the Gazette as well as in the newspaper. When the matter was proposed to be placed before the District Level Negotiation Committee, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner whose only contention is that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land was without issuing proper notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is illegal and arbitrary. The submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The counter averment that the second notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Krishna District Gazette dated 05.08.2005, and that same was published in the two local newspapers on 25.08.2005 and 24.09.2005 remains uncontroverted. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of any merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.02.2011 vs