The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.28631 & 28634 of 2011 Date: 24.10.2011 Between: Chandra Sudhakar Rao and 6 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat Buildings, AP, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.K.Ananda Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: Order: These two Writ Petitions raise common questions of fact and law. Therefore, they are being heard and disposed of together. The petitioners are owners of certain lands, which are notified, for acquisition, by the respondents for the purpose of implementation of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme for the persons, whose lands were acquired for construction of an irrigation project viz., Kandula Obul Reddy Gundlakamma Reservoir Project. The petitioners filed their objections in pursuance of notice issued under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to them, the objections, filed by them, were received by respondent No.4- Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector (LA) on 29-04-2010. The petitioners alleged that, without communicating the order on their objections, respondent No.3- Special Collector (LA) published declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 09-03-2011 and that thereafter, they have received notice, dated 29-09-2011, under Section 12 (2) of the Act, in the first week of October, 2011, whereby they came to know that respondent No.3 has passed an award on 06-08-2011. According to the petitioners, they did not have the notice in the award enquiry. They have questioned the action of the respondents, leading to passing of the award, mainly on the ground that in the absence of communication of the decision on their objections filed in the Section 5-A enquiry, the subsequent acts, including passing of the award, get vitiated. After hearing Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not diligent in prosecuting their cause. Even assuming that the order passed in the enquiry, held under Section 5-A of the Act, was not communicated to the petitioners, they ought to have challenged the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act before the respondents passed the award. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was published in a local daily newspaper viz., Praja Shakti on 11-03-2011. Thereafter, the award was passed on 06-08-2011. The petitioners, therefore, had enough time to approach this Court and challenge the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, if they were convinced that the declaration was made without communicating the order on their objections filed under Section 5- A of the Act. Having allowed the subsequent proceedings to take place culminating in passing of the award, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this belated stage on the purported ground that the respondents have not communicated the decision on the petitioners’ objections. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.35374 and 35377 of 2011 in WP.Nos.28631 and 28634 of 2011 respectively, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 24th October, 2011 LUR