HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18259 of 2007 Date : 16.08.2011 Between : Bathula Venkateswara Rao & others. …..Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (L.A) & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18259 of 2007 ORDER : Though interlocutory matters are listed for hearing, at the request of the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition itself is heard and is being disposed of. This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the notification issued vide Ref.B1/55/2006, dated 20-5-2006, by the 3rd respondent under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal and arbitrary. The Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry, has notified a total extent of 69 acres of land in Sy.No.1/2 etc., of Nagampalli village of Seethanagaram Mandal, for excavation of Left Main Canal of Indira Sagar Project. On requisition from the irrigation authorities, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 20th of May 2006, and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 30th of August 2006. When Award inquiry was pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, this writ petition was filed on 27th of August 2007 and an order of status quo was passed by this Court on 24.09.2007, which is continued all along. Though the writ petition is filed questioning the validity of acquisition proceedings on several grounds, the learned counsel for petitioners has argued seeking invalidation of acquisition only on two grounds. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned notification is issued by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, who is not the competent authority. Secondly, it is contended by the learned counsel that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act were not published in the newspapers as per the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. When the matter was called on last occasion, in view of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners that the Special Deputy Collector is not competent to issue notification, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to produce the original record. When the matter is taken up today, the original record has been produced and a perusal of record indicates that the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act are issued by the Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, East Godavari District. It is also not disputed that so far as the Special Collector is concerned, there is delegation authorizing him to notify the lands. From the original record, it is clear that the notification and declaration are not issued by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, as pleaded by the learned counsel for petitioners, but are issued by the Special Collector, who is delegated with such power. Even with regard to the second allegation, it is stated in the counter that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is published in two daily newspapers, namely, Visalandhra and Janaspandana on 21.05.2006. Further, it is stated that the substance of the notification was published on 09.06.2006, and the declaration, dated 30th August 2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act is published in the daily newspapers, namely, Visakha Samacharam on 02.09.2006 and Andhra Bhoomi on 03.09.2006. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are not being published in the newspapers circulated in the locality, as evident from the counter affidavit, the notification and declaration were published in the newspapers as contemplated under law. Although a further contention is advanced that the aforesaid newspapers are not widely circulated, it is not the case of petitioners that they had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. It is to be noticed that land to an extent of 69 acres was notified in a compact block of the same village and all other land owners have given their consent for passing of Award, by accepting the price suggested by the price negotiation committee, except the petitioners, whose land is to an extent of Ac.8.60 cents. In view of the publication of notification and declaration in the newspapers and in the absence of any specific allegation of any prejudice on account of non-publication in other newspapers, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, for grant of directions as prayed for. As it is stated that the award is not passed to the extent of the land of the petitioners and the award inquiry is still pending, I permit the petitioners to file a claim petition before the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of six weeks from today, and if any such claim petition is filed with supporting evidence, the Land Acquisition Officer shall consider the same in the light of the material relied on by the petitioners, for determining the compensation, before passing the award, and the award is to be passed as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind that the notification was issued in the year 2006. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th August 2011 N.B: Issue C.C. in one week. (b/o) ajr