THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 2485 of 2007 ORDER: An extent of Ac.19.25 cents of land in various survey numbers of Bhongir Revenue Village and Mandal, of Nalgonda District, was notified for acquisition on 14-11-2006, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), by the District Collector, Nalgonda, the 1st respondent. The petitioners state that they are the owners of Ac.5.07½ cents of land in Sy.No.42/A. When their names did not find place in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, as well as the notice, under Section 5-A of the Act, they submitted representations to the respondents, furnishing details of their claims and raising objections for acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer, the 2nd respondent herein verified the matter about the entitlement of the petitioners, and entrusted the same to the Mandal Revenue Officer, and on receipt of the remarks of the Mandal Revenue Officer, he included the names of the petitioners also in the notice issued for enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners contend that the proceedings are vitiated on account of non-mentioning of their names in the statutory proceedings. They also contend that the lands are being put to agriculture, and that they would suffer irreparable loss and hardship, in case the acquisition is proceeded with. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, narrating the developments, that have taken place in the matter. It is stated that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted, and the 1st respondent has forwarded the objections raised by various owners of different pieces of land, as well as those, submitted by the petitioners, to the State Government for its opinion and conclusions, as required under the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In a way, it can be said that the writ petition is premature. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is held and the petitioners have also participated in it. As required under sub-section (2) of the Act, the 1st respondent is stated to have forwarded his remarks to the State Government. The petitioners did not make any effort or endeavour to obtain a copy of the report submitted by the 1st respondent. Even assuming that the contentions urged by them were not taken into account by the 1st respondent, the petitioners can feel grievance, if only a notification under Section 6 of the Act is published. There is no reason to believe that the objections raised by the petitioners would not be considered before that. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as premature. It is however directed that, in case the petitioners feel aggrieved, as and when any notification under Section 6 of the Act is published, it shall be open to them to urge all the grounds, in case they challenge the said notification. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-05-2010. KO