HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16434 of 2008 Date : 31.10.2011 Between : Peddinti Subba Lakshmi @ Ganga Veera Venkata Subba Lakshmi. …..Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary (Revenue) & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16434 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the notification issued in Ref.G3/1934/2008, dated 15.07.2008, under Land Acquisition Act, by which, the land to an extent of Ac.3.85 cents covered by Sy.No.80/2 of Palacherla village in Rajanagaram Mandal of East Godavari District, is sought to be acquired. The impugned notification is questioned mainly on the ground that though the petitioner is the owner of aforesaid land by virtue of her purchase in the Court auction, her name was not notified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, but the name of one Smt.Mungina Venkata Lakshmi was wrongly notified. On the aforesaid ground, petitioner seeks invalidation of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry. In the counter, it is stated that the village of Palacherla in Rajahmundry Mandal, is declared as a model and Adarsha village under “Indiramma” scheme and as it was found that 150 families in the said village are living without any houses of their own, after selecting the beneficiaries, an extent of 5 acres of land is notified for acquisition. It is stated that the land covered by Sy.No.80/2 is part of the acquired area of 5 acres. While giving the details of publication of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the said Act in the gazette and newspapers, it is stated that after obtaining interim orders from this Court, the petitioner has approached the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, on 25.10.2008 and requested to pay compensation to the land to an extent of Ac.3.85 cents in R.S.No.80/2 in Palacherla village of Rajanagaram Mandal. It is stated that there was a further representation filed on 15th December 2008, requesting to pay compensation to herself and Mungina Venkatalakshmi in equal shares, stating that both had settled the dispute in the presence of village elders and signed the notarized Khararunama. It is also stated that in the aforesaid representation, petitioner has agreed to withdraw the writ petition, expressing no objection for receiving compensation for the aforesaid land. Merely because the name of the petitioner is not notified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that, by itself, is no ground to invalidate the notification. If the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land in question, she can participate in the award inquiry for payment of compensation. In any event, in view of the stand of respondents that petitioner herself has approached the authorities and filed a representation for award of compensation to herself and other lady whose name is notified in the 4(1) notification, and agreed for withdrawal of writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to approach the Land Acquisition Officer, seeking for payment of compensation. It is made clear that if there is any settlement between the petitioner and the other lady, whose name is notified in the 4(1) notification, it is open for the Land Acquisition Officer to award compensation in the light of the representation filed by them. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st October 2011 ajr