ORDER The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of the land to an extent of AC.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.300/E and Ac A.24 guntas in Sy.No.300/A of Dornakal Village and Mandai, Warangal District having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 29.3.1997. It is claimed that they were also issued pattadar pass books on 18.6.2007 by the Mandai Revenue Officer, Dornakal. While so, on 9.7.2008 when there was an attempt to dispossess them by the officials of the respondents, they came to know that AC.1-19 Y 2 guntas out of their land situated in Sy.No.300/A was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for the purpose of construction of a Summer Storage Tank. On enquiry, it was found that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in local dailies dated 21.6.2007 and the award was also passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 17.6.2008 fixing the compensation. However, since the names of the petitioners were not reflected either as owners or possessors in the notification, there was no notice to them at any point of time. Even the award enquiry was concluded behind their back. 2. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act dated 1.6.2007 as well as the consequential award dated 17.6.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent are arbitrary and illegal. 3. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District, filed a counter-affidavit stating that as per the Sub Divisional Record, the patta land coming under acquisition for construction of Summer Storage Tank at Dornakal Village included 17 guntas out of AC.15.26 guntas in Sy.No.290 and AC.1.19 Y2 guntas out of AC.17.14 guntas of land in Sy.No.300. Accordingly, the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 1.6.2007 and the same was also published in the local dailies and locality on 21.6.2007 and 27.6.2007 respectively. In view of the urgency involved, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 12.7.2007. In view of the urgency involved, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 12.7.2007. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice under Sections 9 (1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act on 10.4.2008 to all the interested persons asking them to attend before the Land Acquisition Officer on 25.4.2008 and to show their nature of the claim and interest over the land under acquisition. Such notices were also issued to all the pattadars, occupants and enjoyers as per enjoyment survey asking them to attend enquiry on 25.4.2008 and establish their title over the land in question. However, so far as the land in Sy.No.300 is concerned, none appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer. In the circumstances, the Land Acquisition Officer again issued a notice on 26.4.2008 calling upon them to attend the award enquiry on 29.4.2008. Since there was no response and none appeared so far as the land situated in Sy.No.300 is concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted draft award proposals to the District Collector, Warangal for approval on 30.4.2008. The same was approved on 16.6.2008 and accordingly the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 17.6.2008 and issued the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act to the pattadars/enjoyers as per the enjoyment survey on 17.6.2008 calling upon them to receive compensation within 7 days. The Pattadars of the land situated in Sy.No.290, who also participated in the award enquiry, appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and received compensation in respect of their land. However, so far as the land situated in Sy.No.300 is concerned, none appeared. Therefore, the compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of AC.1.19 % guntas situated in Sy.No.300 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad on 25.6.2008. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed on 11.7.2008. 4. It is further stated that so far as 20 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.300/A and 11 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.300/E, in respect of which the petitioners claim title, notices were issued by the Land Acquisition Officer to one Nunna Jayaprada, Bheemarapu Mangayya who were shown as enjoyers and occupiers as per the enjoyment survey. Both of them failed to attend the award enquiry in spite of repeated notices. Both of them failed to attend the award enquiry in spite of repeated notices. The names of the petitioners were not found in the revenue record as pattadars or occupiers or enjoyers. Hence, their names were not notified in the notification and award enquiry notices could not be issued to them. It is further stated that even assuming that the petitioners purchased the lands in the year 1997 they failed to take any steps to get their names mutated in the revenue records by the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The survey and sub-division work, including enjoyment survey i.e., identification of the enjoyers of the land on the spot, took place in the year 2006 and as per the said survey Sri Gaddam Narasaiah, Smt. Nunna Jayaprada, Sri Bheemarapu lv1angaiah and Sri Kotha Lingaiah were found as enjoyers of different extents of land situated in Sy.No.300. It was also found that Smt. Nunna Jayaprada filed O.S.No.181 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior, Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad against' one K. Thirupathi Reddy and obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 27.6.2006 restraining him from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the land in Sy.No.300/A 1 to an extent of Ac.4.24 guntas. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question since 1997 is unfounded and there is no other record to certify the petitioners' ownership since 1997. Therefore, there is no illegality in publishing 4 (1) notification without mentioning the names of the petitioners. It is further explained that the award enquiry notices under Sections 9(1) and 10 in Form-6 and the notices under Sections 9 (3) and 10 in Form-7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to all the pattadars, occupants and enjoyers as per Pahani and enjoyment survey twice on 10.4.2008 and 26.4.2008 calling upon them to attend the enquiry along with documentary evidence to support the ownership rights claimed by them. Notices in Form-6 were affixed on the notice-board of the Tahsildar Office, Dornakal, MPDO Office, Dornakal, 0/0. the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Dornakal and Station House Officer, Dornakal on 17.4.2008 and 27.4.2008. Notices in Form-6 were affixed on the notice-board of the Tahsildar Office, Dornakal, MPDO Office, Dornakal, 0/0. the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Dornakal and Station House Officer, Dornakal on 17.4.2008 and 27.4.2008. Since there was no response, the Land Acquisition Officer, passed the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was deposited in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri N. Subba Reddy appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. 6. As could be seen from the material on record, admittedly the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act did not reflect the names of the petitioners herein. Consequently the petitioners had no notice of the award enquiry and the award dated 17.6.2008 was passed in their absence. However, the specific case of the respondents is that as per the enjoyment survey, the petitioners were not found to be either as occupants or enjoyers. Nothing could be placed before this Court by the petitioners to show that the mutation was effected in the revenue records entering their names by the date of Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration. It is also clear from the details furnished in the counteraffidavit by the Land Acquisition Officer that the names of Smt. Nunna Jayaprada and Sri Gheemmapu Mangaiah, who were found in the enjoyment survey as occupants and enjoyers, were mentioned in the draft notification and draft declaration. The notices in the award enquiry were also issued in the names of the said persons. Hence, the impugned notification and the award cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that the names of the petitioners were not mentioned. 7. However, the learned Senior Counsel while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in Vajja Koteswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P., Secretary, Social Welfare Dept.1 contended that the award dated 17.6.2008 is liable to be quashed since admittedly the said award was passed behind back of the petitioners and consequently there shall be a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed from the stage of the enquiry under Section 9 (3) of the Act. 8. of A.P., Secretary, Social Welfare Dept.1 contended that the award dated 17.6.2008 is liable to be quashed since admittedly the said award was passed behind back of the petitioners and consequently there shall be a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed from the stage of the enquiry under Section 9 (3) of the Act. 8. In Vajja Koteswara Rao's case1 the names of the petitioners therein who were claiming title to the land acquired was not mentioned in the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. When the acquisition proceedings were challenged on that ground, this Court while negativing the said contention, held that from the mere fact that the name of the owner of the land was not mentioned in Section 4 (1) or Section 6 Notifications, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings were bad since Section 4 (1) or Section 6 do not contemplate giving the names of the persons owning the land. However, it was added that sufficient particulars of the land in the locality should be given in the notification, so that people who are interested in the land may know of it. While concluding that the test is whether the persons interested in the land can come to know of the proceedings, the writ petition was dismissed insofar as the petitioners 1 to 5 therein were concerned. So far as the 6th petitioner therein was concerned, having found that there was no notice to him even during award enquiry either under Section 9 or Section 10 of the Act, this Court held that the award as against the 6th petitioner was not valid. Accordingly, the proceedings from that stage as against the 6th petitioner were quashed directing the Land Acquisition Officer to give a notice to him under Section 9 (3) of the Act and proceed from that stage and pass a separate award so far as the 6th petitioner therein was concerned. 9. At the outset, it is to be noted that in Vajja Koteswara Rao's case (1 supra) the name of the 6th petitioner therein was admittedly figured in the revenue records by the date of draft notification itself. 9. At the outset, it is to be noted that in Vajja Koteswara Rao's case (1 supra) the name of the 6th petitioner therein was admittedly figured in the revenue records by the date of draft notification itself. Hence, this Court while holding that service of notice under Section 9 of the Act was necessary to the persons interested in the land, set aside the award as against the 6th petitioner therein. 10. In the instant case, even according to the petitioners, the mutation in the revenue records by including their names was affected only on 18.6.2007 whereas the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published prior to that on 1.6.2007. Admittedly, the notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the persons whose names were shown as pattadars, enjoyers and occupiers in the revenue records. In the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be placed on par with the 6th petitioner in Vajja Koteswara Rao's case (1 supra) and the award cannot be set aside on the ground that the notice under Section 9 of the Act was not served on the petitioners. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners cited yet another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Class IV Employees Buldg. Society v. T. V. Reddy. wherein it was held that the award which was not bona fide and no opportunity was given to the occupier to make his claim for compensation is bad. 12. It is a case where a finding was recorded by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties that no notice was served under Section 9(3) of the Act on the occupier of the land though it was positively known and believed that he was the occupier. Having regard to the said finding of fact, this Court held that failure to serve a notice on such person would amount to wilful perversity and the subsequent proceedings cannot be considered bona fide and should be held to be inoperative and accordingly set aside the award on that ground. However, the facts in the case on hand are entirely different and therefore the petitioners cannot be granted such relief. 13. However, the facts in the case on hand are entirely different and therefore the petitioners cannot be granted such relief. 13. On the other hand, as held by the Supreme Court in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. As noticed above, whereas the draft notification was published on 1.6.2007 and the advance possession was taken on 25.8.2007, the present writ petition was filed on 11.7.2008. By that time, even the award was passed on 17.6.2008. 14. It is also relevant to note that in C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N.4 and Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others, the Supreme Court held that after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceedings thereunder. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this is not a case which warrants interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.