IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26070 of 2008 Between: 1 Gunturi Venkata Kumari, D/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu, R/o. Door No. 55-7/11/3, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam. 2 Gunturi Srinivasa Rao, D/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu, R/o. Door No. 55-7/11/3, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam. 3 Gunturi Rajendra, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Hindu, R/o. Door No. 55-7/11/3, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State Rep. by the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Narsapur, West Godavari 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 to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records in Roc.NO. SW/117/07(G2) Dt. 20-04-07 and also the proceedings in Roc.No.SW/117/07(G2) dt. 07- 11-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and all other consequential proceedings in pursuance of the said Notification as the same are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.26070 of 2008 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners, in this writ petition, is that though they are the owners of the land under acquisition, they were not given notice of the 5-A enquiry and, even without considering their objections, orders were passed consequent upon the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is their case that their paternal uncle Sri Gunturi Suryanarayana had submitted his objections wherein he had specifically stated that he and his younger brother were the owners of the land and, on his younger brother’s demise, the latter’s children succeeded to his share in the property. Petitioners are the daughter and sons of the younger brother of Sri Gunturi Suryanarayana. On a query from the Court, Sri P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, in the revenue records, it is only their paternal uncle’s name which was shown, that their names were not reflected therein, that the objections of Sri Gunturi Suryanarayana were considered in the 5-A enquiry and his contentions were rejected. On being asked what the other contentions were, Sri P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were small farmers and that acquisition of their lands would disentitle them from their only source of livelihood. The very same contention put-forth both on behalf of the petitioners, and on his own self, by Sri Gunturi Suryanarayana has been rejected. I see no reason to now interdict the order passed under Section 5-A of the Act on the ground that the petitioners, whose names were not reflected in the revenue records and were, admittedly, not shown in the 4(1) notification, were not put on notice before the Section 5-A enquiry was conducted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:28-11-2008 usd