IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.63 of 2008 Between: 1 Vattikuti Venkata Rao S/o Venkaiah 2 Vattikuti Subba Laxmi W/o Venkata Rao 3 Vattikuti Venkata Raju S/o Venkata rao All Petitioners are R/o chodavaram Villge, Ramachandrapuram mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (land Acquisition ) Depot rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildigns, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector East Godavari District at kakinada 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry Rural Division, East Godavari District. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram, East Godvari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Notification ROC No. G3/51/2007 dated 19-08-2007 to acquire the lands of the petitioners in an extent of Ac. 0.80 cents in Sy. No. 393/3 and ac. 1-20 cents in Sy.No. 395 of Chodavaram Village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the land acquisition act and also the orders of the 2nd respondent dt 18-12- 2007 and set a side the same consequently direct the respondents from the said lands and pass orders and pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the PetitionerS: MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.63 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Notification dated 19.08.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby extents of Ac.0.80 cents and Ac.1.20 cents comprised in Sy.Nos.393/3 and 395 of Chodavaram village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, are proposed to be acquired. The petitioners also sought for invalidation of the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by Respondent No.2, whereby the petitioners’ objections were rejected. Heard Sri M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. No counter affidavit is filed. In the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners specifically averred that they are not given any opportunity of personal hearing and that therefore, the decision of respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents have not specifically controveted the above mentioned allegations by filing counter affidavits. The learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Land Acquisition, after seeing the record, candidly admitted that the enquiry record maintained by respondent No.3 does not contain any proof of his holding enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. It needs no emphasis that Sec.5-A provides a valuable opportunity to landowners to submit their objections and be heard personally against the proposed acquisition. It is held by the Supreme Court and reiterated time and again that such a valuable opportunity shall not be denied to the owners of the land unless in cases where enquiry is dispensed with on account of urgency involved for acquiring the lands. Respondent No.3 being charged with the statutory duty of holding enquiry, is bound to maintain proper record to satisfy the Court wherever the issue relating to denial of opportunity of personal hearing is raised. It is most unfortunate that more often the Land Acquisition Officers have failed to maintain the Minutes of the Enquiry, and in the absence of maintenance of proper record, the Court is bound to draw a presumption that they have not held enquiry. In view of absence of any evidence on record to show that respondent No.3 gave opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and held enquiry, the Writ Petition is allowed, and order dated 18.12.2007, passed by respondent No.2, is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to hold enquiry afresh by giving the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. It is needless to mention that respondent No.3 will maintain proper record of enquiry, at least in future. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 19.02.2008 Dsr