THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29355 of 2009 Dated : 16.02.2010 Between : Sanaypalle Vishwanath Redy & others ….. Petitioners a n d The Revenue Divisional Officer & another ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29355 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration by way of a Writ of Mandamus that the proceedings in Ref.G1/556/2008 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), published in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper dated 07.03.2009 is illegal and arbitrary. 2) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.1-61 ½ cents covered by D.No.68/1 of Pymashi No.180 of Putlampalli Gram Panchayat, having purchased the same from the earlier owners and possessors Karnati Venkata Subba Reddy and his brothers. It is further stated that the fifth petitioner has purchased the land to an extent of 34 cents in survey No.18/9A of Putlampalli Gram Panchayat from Smt.Jayaratnam vide registered sale deed dated 06.03.1997, and he also purchased 52 cents of land in survey No.18/9B of Putlampalli Gram Panchyat from T.Obul Reddy and others vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.1994. It is also stated that the aforementioned lands were notified by the second respondent-The District Collector, Kadapa, for formation of road to Nadimpalle Village. 3) It is the contention of the petitioners that when their lands are situated in Putlampalli Gram Panchayath, they cannot be acquired for formation of road to Nadimpalle Village. It is their further contention that their names were not notified in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act and no opportunity was given to them in the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A of the Act. 4) A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kadapa. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that as per the endorsement in the revenue records, earlier owners’ names were notified in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act and when the notices were issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the earlier owners have stated that the lands were sold to the petitioners. It is further stated that the respondents have also issued notices to the petitioners informing the acquisition, but they have refused to take the notices. As such, the objections filed by the vendors of the petitioners were considered and orders were passed on 28.12.2009 rejecting the objections raised by the vendors of the petitioners. It is also stated that the land notified, which belongs to petitioners, is necessary for public purpose i.e. for formation of link road to Nadimpalle Village from Putlampalli road. The counter affidavit also states that after the orders were passed rejecting the objections raised by the vendors of the petitioners, draft declaration was also published under Section 6 of the Act. 5) In this writ petition, the petitioners have neither questioned the order passed under Section 5-A of the Act nor the subsequent declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The names of the petitioners were not notified in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, as their names were not located in the revenue records, but on receipt of information from the previous land owners, these petitioners were issued notices and as such were given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, but they have not participated in the enquiry and even refused to receive the notices. In view of the enquiry conducted, further steps were taken by the respondents keeping in view the public purpose as stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 6) Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act published in the daily newspaper on 07.03.2009 in Proceedings Ref.G1/556/2008 dated 01.03.2008. 7) For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th February, 2010 SUR