Judgment : This Court issued rule nisi on 23-1-2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.1151/2009 made the following order:- “There shall be interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from his lands. However, this will not preclude the authorities from proceeding with the matter under the Land Acquisition Act for taking further steps, subject to the result of the Writ Petition.” 2. The Writ Petition was filed by one K.Bhagyamma and since the said Bhagyamma died, K.Munirathnam, the 2nd petitioner was brought on record as legal representative of the deceased writ petitioner as per order in W.P.M.P.No.20630/2009, dt.20-8-2009. Originally, the Writ Petition was filed as against R.1 to R.4. M/s.Sri City (P) Ltd., - R.5 came on record by virtue of an order made by this Court dt.20-8-2009 in W.P.M.P.No.8631/2009. 3. The original writ petitioner – K.Bhagyamma filed this Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-35 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.1-13 cents in Sy.No.6/1, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.8/13, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-17 cents in Sy.No.9/5, Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.10/16, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.9/17, Ac.0-08 cents in Sy.No.9/9, Ac.0-60 cents in Sy.No.17/19, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.17/4, Ac.0-08 ½ cents in Sy.No.16/16, Ac.0-10 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.14/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.17/2, Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.11/1, Ac.0-06 cents in Sy.No.11/12, Ac.0-09 cents in Sy.No.12/4, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/12, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.12/13, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/17, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.13/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.13/14, Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.13/6, Ac.0-05 ½ cents in Sy.No.14/4 and Ac.0-35 ½ cents in Sy.No.46/4 of Matherimitta village, Varadaiahpalem mandal, Chittoor District without considering the representation dt.23-12-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23-12-2006 after giving an opportunity of being heard and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. Averments in detail had been made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2179/2009 to vacate the interim order dt.23-1-2009 made by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.1151/2009 in W.P.No.908/2009. Likewise, the 5th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2658/2009 praying for vacate of the interim order aforesaid. 4. Averments in detail had been made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2179/2009 to vacate the interim order dt.23-1-2009 made by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.1151/2009 in W.P.No.908/2009. Likewise, the 5th respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2658/2009 praying for vacate of the interim order aforesaid. When the vacate applications came up for hearing, the Counsel on record made submissions in the main Writ Petition and also further made a request for the final disposal of the Writ Petition itself. Hence, at the request of the Counsel on record, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally. 5. Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, at present the legal representative of the original writ petitioner, made the following submissions:- The learned Counsel would maintain that it is not as though relating to the ownership of the lands in question, the Land Acquisition Officer is unaware of the fact despite the representation made to the concerned authorities and despite the repeated requests made by the petitioner, the land acquisition proceedings were proceeded with and the Award was made granting compensation to wrong persons. The learned Counsel also specifically pointed out that when certain survey numbers are covered by the self-same sale deed making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act relating to a portion thereof and paying compensation to the third parties, without making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the other survey numbers, this would speak volumes of the conduct of the Officers concerned. The learned Counsel would maintain that in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, inasmuch as the writ petitioner is not interested in questioning the land acquisition proceedings as such now he is interested in getting the Award set aside by praying for other appropriate directions or suitable directions to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of deciding who would be entitled to the compensation, in the light of the same let the Award be set aside to the said extent and apart from the reference already made let there be appropriate directions to the competent authority to refer the matter to the other survey numbers as well covered by the self-same sale deed to be decided in accordance with law under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had pointed out to the relevant portions of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 and would maintain that in the light of the clear stand taken in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief at all. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also would maintain that while deciding the matter of this nature, the conduct of the parties also to be taken into consideration it is not as though this Bhagyamma and the present legal representative of Bhagyamma – Muniratnam, they are unaware of the proceedings, these parties also having received a portion of the compensation relating to these survey numbers, never raised any objection whatsoever and having received the compensation at a later point of time for reasons best known had made certain representations. This conduct would clearly go to show that the contentions which had been put forth by the present writ petitioner cannot be said to be bona fide contentions. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the learned A.G.P. for Land Acquisition would contend that when at the appropriate time as contemplated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act if objections had not been submitted, such parties may not be entitled to any remedy within the purview of the Act may be that such parties may be entitled to the other remedies under the General Law. Hence, at present, no such directions for further reference relating to the other survey number covered by the sale deed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act can be given by the Writ Court. 7. J.Vijaya Laxmi, the learned Counsel representing 5th respondent would maintain that though possession already had been taken, though the writ petitioner was conscious of this fact, suppressing the facts, without impleading the 5th respondent, who will be the real affected party, the interim relief of stay of dispossession had been obtained. The Counsel also would maintain that the land was acquired for the purpose of a Large Project and in view of the pendency of this Writ Petition, the other purpose of the Project is being hampered, even otherwise, in the light of the conduct of parties, this being not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition to be dismissed. 8. Heard the Counsel. Perused the material available on record and perused the respective pleadings of the parties and also the material available on record. 9. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition already had been specified supra. Since the original writ petitioner – Bhagyamma is no more, the legal representative of the said Bhagyamma is at present prosecuting the litigation. It is averred that the 1st petitioner purchased lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-35 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.1-13 cents in Sy.No.6/1, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.8/13, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-17 cents in Sy.No.9/5, Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.10/16, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.9/17, Ac.0-08 cents in Sy.No.9/9, Ac.0-60 cents in Sy.No.17/19, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.17/4, Ac.0-08 ½ cents in Sy.No.16/16, Ac.0-10 cents in Sy.No.7/2, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.14/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.17/2, Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.11/1, Ac.0-06 cents in Sy.No.11/12, Ac.0-09 cents in Sy.No.12/4, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/12, Ac.0-13 cents in Sy.No.12/13, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.12/17, Ac.0-16 cents in Sy.No.13/7, Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.13/14, Ac.0-04 cents in Sy.No.13/6, Ac.0-05 ½ cents in Sy.No.14/4 and Ac.0-35 ½ cents in Sy.No.46/4 of Matherimitta village, Varadaiahpalem mandal, Chittoor District, vide registered sale deed dt.7-7-70 from her vendor. In all, the 1st petitioner was the owner of the above said lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6-19 cents and she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said lands without any interruption whatsoever from any quarter by raising various crops. In all, the 1st petitioner was the owner of the above said lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6-19 cents and she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said lands without any interruption whatsoever from any quarter by raising various crops. It is also stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its power of eminent domain issued a notification vide proceedings G2/3557/2006 published in the Gazette on 16-3-2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In the said 4(1) notification the Government of A.P. sought to be acquired the lands of the 1st petitioner for the purpose of establishing an Industrial Park by creating Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It is stated that in the 4(1) notification dt.16-3-2006 1st petitioner name was not shown as owner and pattedar of the above said lands purchased by her. Thereafter the Government of A.P. issued a Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act vide proceedings Roc.No.G2/3557/2006, dt.10-11-2006 in the Gazette, even in the Draft Declaration also her name was not shown in the Pattedar column. Further it is stated that at the time of 4(1) notification issued by the respondents, she was not keeping good health and she was admitted in Hospital at Chennai. Thereafter she was bed-ridden. After coming to know about the fact that, her name was not shown in the 4(1) notification and as well as 6 declaration in the Pattedar column, her son made a representation dt.23-12-2006 to the R.D.O., Tirupathi marking a copy to the District Collector, Chittoor bringing the mistake crept in the notification and declaration and further requests the authorities to conduct an enquiry after giving an opportunity of being heard and incorporate the name of the 1st petitioner as owner and pattedar in the 4(1) notification and as well as 6 declaration and till such time, compensation may not be disbursed with regard to the lands in question to any third parties. It is further stated that though a representation dt.23-12-2006 was made to the authorities, the respondents neither conducted any enquiry nor passed any order. The 1st petitioner had been in possession of the lands and had been cultivating the lands in question. It is further stated that though a representation dt.23-12-2006 was made to the authorities, the respondents neither conducted any enquiry nor passed any order. The 1st petitioner had been in possession of the lands and had been cultivating the lands in question. It is also stated that the respondents are trying to dispossess the 1st petitioner from the aforesaid lands without considering her representation dt.23-12-2006 and without giving notice and conduct enquiry, when questioned the illegal action of the respondents, the respondents are openly professing that the compensation would be paid to the third parties. In such cents, being left with no other option, the writ petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim order as already aforesaid. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by R.2 to R.4, several facts in detail had been narrated and the consent given by the petitioner, Form I, III and IV, Consent Award No.11/2006, Consent Award No.12/2006, Form CC – acquittance showing the details of compensation amount received by the petitioner vide Sl.No.3 and Possession certificate – handing over of possession to the APIIC relating to Award no.11/2007 and 12/2007 also had been placed before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed, several of the facts had been specifically denied. It is stated that the writ petitioner had filed this Writ Petition suppressing the material. The petitioner had taken compensation of rs.7,97,500/- vide Demand Draft dt.4-6-2007 without protest. The possession was already taken and delivered to APIIC on 16-4-2007. The petitioner is guilty of suppressing of facts and on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati, had submitted two separate requisitions to the District Collector, Chittoor District in the year 2006 for acquiring the lands to an extent of Ac.50.58 cents and Ac.55.77 cents in Sy.No.1/1 etc., and 30/2 etc., respectively situated at Siddama Agraharam village of Varadaiahpalem mandal, for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Part (Special Economic Zone). On receipt of requisition, the District Collector, Chittoor had instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati to submit the land acquisition proposals for the lands requisitioned by the APIIC. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati without conducting field survey, had submitted separate Land Acquisition proposals for the lands requisitioned by the APIIC to the District Collector for approval. On receipt of requisition, the District Collector, Chittoor had instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati to submit the land acquisition proposals for the lands requisitioned by the APIIC. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati without conducting field survey, had submitted separate Land Acquisition proposals for the lands requisitioned by the APIIC to the District Collector for approval. The District Collector had approved the said notifications as follows: Notification No.11/006:- The District Collector, Chittoor has approved the 4(1) notification in Roc.G2/3357/2006, dt.16-3-2006. After approval, the said Draft Notification has been published in the A.P.State Gazette Extraordinary Issue no.11/2006, dt.16-3-2006. The said Notification was also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., the Hindu and Andhra Bhoomi on 22-3-2006. The substance of Notification was published in the locality on 19-4-2006. As per 10(1) Account of Siddama Agraharam village, the lands covered in the petition stands in the name of Sri S.Pakeerswamy Pillai and 11 others vide patta No.72. The lands in Sy.No.8/13 and 46/4 of Siddama Agraharam village stands in the name of S.Pakeerswamy Pillai and 11 others vide patta No.1. As per Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 of sub-section (1) has to file objections, if any, within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification for the lands proposed for acquisition. In the instant case, no objections were filed within stipulated time. Before publication of Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, teams were constituted consisting Tahasildar/Deputy Tahasildar/Revenue Inspector/Surveyor supervised by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. Basing on the survey reports of the Teams, the Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the L.A.Act were submitted to the District Collector, Chittoor, and the same were approved by the District Collector, Chittoor in Roc.No.G2/3557/06, dt.10-11-2006 and it was published in A.P.State Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.11/2006 dt.10-11-06. The contents were also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., Eenadu on 11-11-2006 and The Hindu on 12-11-2006. The substance of Declaration was published in the locality on 20-11-2006. The Requisition Department viz., the APIIC Ltd., has filed a written consent in Form-V required under provisions of the A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992, to the District Collector and Chairman, Negotiation Committee, to pass consent Award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The substance of Declaration was published in the locality on 20-11-2006. The Requisition Department viz., the APIIC Ltd., has filed a written consent in Form-V required under provisions of the A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992, to the District Collector and Chairman, Negotiation Committee, to pass consent Award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, Form-1 Notices has required under the provisions of the A.P.Land Acquisition (Negotiation Committee) Rules, 1992, have been issued to the land owners/persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition. In response to the above notice in Form-I all the land owners/persons isntd in the land have agreed for passing consent Awards and given consent in Form-III (Agreement) and in Form-IV (Affidavit) to that effect. During the negotiations under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, Chittoor, the owners/interested persons have agreed for increase of 45.7% and 46.71% on the land value of Wet Lands and Dry Lands respectively and as per the rates fixed for the trees. The details of the package are as follows:- Land Value per acre for Wet Lands Market value per acre as per PV Rs.1,45,000.00 Solatium @ 30% on MV Rs.43,500.00 Additional Market Value @ 12% per annum Rs.17,500.00 TOTAL Rs.2,05,900.00 % of enhancement agreed in the negotiations 45.7% Rate per acre as per negotiations Rs.3,00,000.00 Land Value per acre for Dry Lands Market value per acre as per PV Rs.1,20,000.00 Solatium @ 30% on Market Value Rs.36,000.00 Additional Market Value @ 12% per annum Rs.14,400.00 TOTAL Rs.1,70,400.00 % of enhancement agreed in the negotiations 46.71% Rate per acre as per negotiations Rs.2,50,000.00 The Award enquiry was conducted from 16-12-2006 to 19-12-2006 at MP Elementary School, Siddama Agraharam village duly publishing of notices under Section 9 (1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act on the persons interested. The petitioner has not filed any objection petition as stated in his affidavit. The petitioner has not filed any objection petition as stated in his affidavit. Apart from publication and service of Form – 6 & 7 notices, Public notices addressing the persons interested in the land under acquisition have been issued in the Daily Newspapers as detailed below: Name of the Daily Newspaper Date of Publication Language in which published Eenadu 10-12-2006 Telugu The Hindu 10-12-2006 English Dinathandhi 10-12-2006 Tamil Vaartha 15-12-2006 Telugu The Hindu 15-12-2006 English Dinathandhi 15-12-2006 Tamil Again a final public notice has also been issued in the following Daily Newspapers (covering Chennai Edition also) calling for objections, fixing specific dates i.e., from 30-12-2006 to 5-1-2007 from the persons interested in the land under acquisition. Name of the Daily Newspaper Date of Publication Language in which published Eenadu 30-12-2006 Telugu The Hindu 30-12-2006 English Dinathandhi 30-12-2006 Tamil Vaartha 30-12-2006 Telugu Out of total extent notified Ac.50.58, the ryoths have given consent for an extent of Ac.49.96 for which consent Award was passed under Section 11(2) of the L.A.Act. For the balance extent of Ac.0.62 cents, the ryoths have not given consent, for which compulsory Award is passed separately under Section 11(1) of the L.A.Act relating to Notification No.11/2006 of Siddhama Agraharam village. The compensation amount awarded under Section 11(2) of the L.A.Act in Award No.11/07 dt.18-3-2007 for the lands contended by the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition as detailed below. Survey No. Extent in Acres Classification Name of the Pattadar as per DD Name of the Enjoyer as per DD 7/2 1. 0.35 Wet K.Ramaiah and others Bhagyamma 2. 3.13 Wet K.Ramaiah and others P.Sarojamma 7/2 6/1 0.19 Wet Gandla Anki Setty Katari Kuppaiah 6/1 2.29 Wet Gandla AnkiSetty P.Sarojamma 8/13 1. 0.29 Wet P.Sarojamma Yella Ramanaiah 2. 0.33 Wet Pillari Naidu M.Chengaiah 9.5 10/16 1. 0.10 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma Yella Krishnaiah 2. 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Bandali Guravaiah 9/17 9/17 0.14 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Yella Subramanyam 9/9 0.08 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Nettam Bhasker 17/19 0.30 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gunimani Munemma 17/19 0.30 Wet Pakeeruswamy Kayyala Munivelu 17/4 1. 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Goyala Munikrishnaiah 2. 0.10 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma Yella Krishnaiah 2. 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Bandali Guravaiah 9/17 9/17 0.14 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Yella Subramanyam 9/9 0.08 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Nettam Bhasker 17/19 0.30 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gunimani Munemma 17/19 0.30 Wet Pakeeruswamy Kayyala Munivelu 17/4 1. 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Goyala Munikrishnaiah 2. 0.19 Wet Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy Avula Raghavaiah 16/16 14/7 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gogula Munikrishnaiah 17/2 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Goyala Munikrishnaiah 17/2 0.13 Wet Pakeeruswamy Koyala Munirathnamma 11/1 0.16 235 Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma C.Munirathnamma 11/1 0.43 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma B.Guravaiah 11/1 0.10 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma M.Seenaiah 11/1 0.11 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai, P.Sarojamma Reddy Muniramaiah 11/12 1. 0.06 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai Yella Ademma 2. 0.07 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Yella Subramanyam 3. 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Sammana D. 12/4 12/4 Vasantha 12/12 0.13 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Yella Anuradha 12/12 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Gogula Munaswamy 12/13 1. 0.13 Wet Pakeeruswamy Pullai and others Katari Bhaskar 2. 0.14 Wet 12/17 Sammana Vasanthamma 12/17 0.12 Wet Balesi Seenaiah 13/7 0.16 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gowra Thulasamma 13/14 0.15 Wet Pakeeruswamy Gowra Thulasamma 13/6 0.04 Wet Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy P.Sarojamma 13/6 1. 0.04 Wet Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy Rathnaiah 2. 0.11 Wet Kayuyala Sarojamma, Pakeeruswamy Kayyala Krishnaiah 14/4 Before publication of Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the L.A.Act, teams were constituted consisting of Tahasildar/Deputy Tahasildar/Revenue Inspector/Surveyor supervised by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. Basing on the filed inspection reports of the teams, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A.Act was published. All interested persons have attended for Award enquiry from 16-12-2006 to 22-12-2006 and stated that they are owners of the land. Further public notices on Award enquiry have been issued before the Award enquiry in the Daily Newspapers published from Tirupati, Nellore and Chennai on 10-12-2006 in Eenadu, The Hindu and Dinathandhi and on 15-12-2006 in Vaartha. In addition public notices were also issued after the Award enquiry on 30-12-2006 in the Tirupati, Nellore and Chennai editions of Eenadu, Vaartha, The Hindu and Dinathandhi calling for objections if any, before the Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. Despite of all the notices above, no counter claims and objections have come with regard to the lands mentioned above. The petitioner has not filed any objection petition dated 23-12-2006 as stated in her affidavit. Despite of all the notices above, no counter claims and objections have come with regard to the lands mentioned above. The petitioner has not filed any objection petition dated 23-12-2006 as stated in her affidavit. The compensation amount was awarded as per the enjoyment on ground basing on reports submitted by teams before publication of Draft Declaration. Hence the compensation for the above lands was ordered to pay to the following Awarded as noted against each vide Award No.11/2007 dt.18-3-2007. Survey No. Extent in Acres Name of the Awardee Amount 7/2 1.55 0.35 1.58 P.Sarojamma W/o.Ramakrishna Reddy K.Bhagyamma W/o.Venkata Munichanga Reddy (Petitioner) Dispute between: 1.Smt.P.Sarojamma 2. 2. Sri Kannambakam Munirathnam Reddy (Referred under Section 30) 465085.2 105000 474000 6/1 1.13 Dispute Between : 1.Smt.P.Sarojamma 2. 2. Sri Kannambakam Munirathnam Reddy (Referred under Section 30) 339000 8/13 0.29 Yella Ramanaiah S/o.Chinnakuppaiah 87000 9/5 0.33 B.Chengaiah, S/o.Munaswamy 99000 10/16 1. 0.10 Yella Kr5ishnaiah, S/o.Chengaiah 30000 2. 0.14 3. 0.15 Yella Subramanyam 9/17 Bandili Guravaiah, S/o.Munaswamy 42000 45000 9/9 1. 0.08 Natham Bhaskar, S/o.Veeraswamy 24000 2. 0.30 Kayyala Munivelu, S/o.Munaswamy 17/19 0.30 Gunimani Munemma, S/o.Subramanyam 90000 90000 17/4 0.16 Gogula Munirksihnaiah, S/o.China Venkataiah 48000 16/16 0.19 Avula Raghavaiah, S/o.Lakshmaiah 57000 14/7 0.16 Gogula Munikrishnaiah, S/o.China Venkataiah 48000 17/2 0.15 0.13 Gogula Munikrishnaiah, S/o.China Venkataiah Kayyala Munirathnamma, W/o.Munaswamy 45000 39000 11/1 0.43 0.16 1. 0.10 2. 0.11 Bandili Guravaiah Chittiboyana Munirathnamma, W/o.Pedda Chengaiah M.Seenaiah, S/o.Chengaiah Reddy Muniramaiah, S/o.Chinnasubbaiah 129000 48000 30000 33000 11/12 0.06 Yella Ademma, W/o.,Krishnaiah 18000 12/4 0.07 0.16 Yella Subramanyam, S/o.Gopaiah Sammanna Vasanthamma, W/o.Chengaiah 21000 48000 12/12 1. 0.13 2. 0.15 Yella Anuradha, W/o.Krishnaiah Gogula Munikrishnaiah, S/o.Ramakrishnaiah 39000 45000 12/13 1. 0.13 Katari Bhaskar, S/o.Chinnaiah 39000 2. 0.14 M.Seenaiah, S/o.Chengaiah 12/17 0.12 Sammana Vasanthamma, W/o.Chengaiah 36000 42000 13/7 0.16 Goura Thulasamma 48000 13/14 0.15 Goura Thulasamma, W/o.Srinivasulu 45000 13/6 0.04 0.04 K.Munirathnam Reddy, S/o.Venkata Munichenga Reddy Dispute between: 1.Smt.P.Sarojamma 2. Sri Kannambakam Munirathnam Reddy (Referred under Section 30) 12000 14/4 0.11 Kayyala Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy 33000 Notice under Section 9(3) and 10 was served to the petitioner Smt.K.Bhagyamma on 28-11-2006 and she had attended for Award enquiry on 16-12-2006 in respect of other S.Nos.3/2B, and 57. She also given consent in Form-I and Form-III for acquisition of lands. The petitioner had received compensation of rs.7,97,500/-through Demand Draft bearing No.339186, dt.4-6-2007 along with other lands including for the land in S.No.7/2 extent Ac.0.35 cents. She also given consent in Form-I and Form-III for acquisition of lands. The petitioner had received compensation of rs.7,97,500/-through Demand Draft bearing No.339186, dt.4-6-2007 along with other lands including for the land in S.No.7/2 extent Ac.0.35 cents. This is clear evidence that the petitioner knowing herself about acquisition of lands in Siddhama Agraharam village. With regard to compensation amount rs.8,25,000/-in respect of S.No.7/2, 6/1 and 13/6 referred under Section 30 of L.A.Act, it is also stated that the Demand Draft bearing No.318269 dt.29-10-2008 was drawn in favour of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti and sent through Asst. Government Pleader, Srikalahasti. It is appropriate to note that one of the interested persons in these Section 30 cases is one Sri K.Munirathnam Reddy, who is the son of the present petitioner Smt.K.Bhagyamma. Notification No.12/06:- The District Collector, Chittoor has approved the Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in Roc.No.G2/3558/06, dt.16-3-2006. T said notification was published in the A.P.State Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.12/2006 dated 16-3-2006. The Notification was also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., (1) The Hindu and (2) Andhra Bhoomi on 22-3-2006. The substance of Notification was published in the locality on 19-4-2006. As per Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act any persons interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 of sub-section (1) has to file objections, if any, within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification for the lands proposed for acquisition. In the instance case, no objections were filed within stipulated time. Before publication of Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A.Act, teams were constituted consisting Tahasildar/Deputy Tahasildar/Revenue Inspector/Surveyor under the supervision of Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor. Basing on the reports of the teams, the Draft Declaration proposals under Section 6 of the L.A.Act were submitted to the District Collector, Chittoor in Roc.No.G2/3558/06, dt.10-11-2006 and it was published in the A.P.State Gazette Extraordinary Issue No.12/2006 dated 10-11-2006. The contents were also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., Eenadu and The Hindu on 12-11-2006. The substance of Declaration was published in the locality on 20-11-2006 in respect of S.No.46/4 as follows:- Survey No. Extent in Acres Classification Name of the Pattadar as per DD Name of the Enjoyer as per DD 46/4 1. 0.18 2. The contents were also published in two Daily Newspapers viz., Eenadu and The Hindu on 12-11-2006. The substance of Declaration was published in the locality on 20-11-2006 in respect of S.No.46/4 as follows:- Survey No. Extent in Acres Classification Name of the Pattadar as per DD Name of the Enjoyer as per DD 46/4 1. 0.18 2. 0.53 Dry Dry Pakeeruswamy Pillai Pakeeruswamy Pullai A. Raghuramaiah Munisekhar Out of the total notified extent of Ac.55.77 cents, an extent of Ac.52.27 cents were covered under consent Award under Section 11(2) of the L.A.Act. For the remaining extent of Ac.3.50 cents the ryoths have not given consent and land was acquired under Compulsory Award under Section 11(1) of the L.A.Act. The compensation amount awarded under Section 11(2) of the L.A.Act in Award No.12/07 dt.18-3-2007 for the lands contended by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as detailed below. Survey No. Extent in Acres Name of the Awardee Amount 46/4 1. 0.35 ½ 2. 1. Muddu Munisekhar 3. 2. K.Munirathnam (Referred under Section 30 of the L.A.Act.) Rs.88750.00 For the land in S.No.46/4 measuring an extent of Ac.0.71 cents of Siddhama Agraharam village one Sri Muddu Munisekhar, S/o.Jayaramaiah is the notified enjoyer. He is the resident of Siddhama Agraharam village. The land is in possession and enjoyment of Sri Muddu Munisekhar. He has not produced any documentary evidence. One Sri K.Munirathnam, S/o.Venkata Munichenga Reddy of Matherimitta village of Varadaiahpalem mandal has filed objection petition stating that his smother Smt.K.Bhagyamma (petitioner) has purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.35 ½ cents in S.No.46/4 through registered sale deed bearing No.399/70 dt.7-7-70. Hence he is requested to pay the compensation amount to him for the land in S.No.46/4. As there is a bonafide title dispute over the land since there are vital claimants viz., Sri Muddu Munisekhar, S/o.Jayaramaiah and Sri K.Munirathnam, S/o.K.Venkata Munichenga Reddy for the land in S.No.46/4 to an extent of Ac.0.35 ½ cents it is decided to refer the matter to the Civil Court for the decision of the Court as envisaged under Section 30 of the L.A.Act and to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.88,750/- towards the land in S.No.46/4 to an extent of Ac.0.35 ½ cents of Siddhama Agraharam village. The Demand Draft bearing No.318268, dt.29-10-2008 for Rs.8,43,053-46 (along with amount for other disputed lands) was drawn in favour of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti and sent through Asst. The Demand Draft bearing No.318268, dt.29-10-2008 for Rs.8,43,053-46 (along with amount for other disputed lands) was drawn in favour of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti and sent through Asst. Government Pleader, Srikalahasti. It may be appropriate to note that one of the interested persons in these Section 30 case is one K.Munirathnam who is the son of petitioner Smt.K.Bhagyamma. No objection was filed by the son of the petitioner as mentioned in the affidavit at any point of time. In view of the above, it is to state that it is not correct to state that all subject lands covered in the above Notifications are belong to petitioner and they were in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner except the land in S.No.7/2 to an extent of Ac.0.35 cents relating to Notification No.11/2006. Whereas the land covered under Notification No.12/2006 the compensation amount was referred to under Section 30 of the L.A.Act as there was title dispute over the land in S.No.46/4 to an extent of Ac.0.35 ½ cents. The possession of the lands acquired were taken and handed over to Requisitioning Department i.e., APIIC on 16-4-2007. Further it is averred that the petitioner never approached the authorities and filed any objection petition and no representation dt.23-12-2006 was given as stated in the affidavit. Ample opportunity was given for filing of objections by any interested persons during Award enquiry. Besides Newspaper publications viz., Eenadu, The Hindu, Dinathandhi (Tamil) and Vaartha (Covering Chennai edition) dated 10-12-2006, 15-12-2006 and 30-12-20067 also had been given after Award enquiry calling for objections, if any, by the interested persons for the lands proposed under acquisition in eight villages of Satyavedu and Varadaiahpalem Mandals. The petitioner or her son had not filed any objection petition at any point of time. The lands have been acquired as per procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act and possession of the lands were also taken and handed over to APIIC on 16-4-2007. It is also further stated that no representation was made before the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer dated 23-12-2006 as mentioned in the affidavit. Public notices addressing the persons interested in the land under acquisition have been issued in the Daily Newspaper on 10-12-2006, 15-12-2006 and 30-12-2006 calling for objections. The petitioner had not filed objection petition. It is also further stated that no representation was made before the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer dated 23-12-2006 as mentioned in the affidavit. Public notices addressing the persons interested in the land under acquisition have been issued in the Daily Newspaper on 10-12-2006, 15-12-2006 and 30-12-2006 calling for objections. The petitioner had not filed objection petition. The possession of the lands were handed over the Requisitioning Department i.e., LAPIIC on 16-04-2007 and as a matter of fact, the Award was passed on 18-3-2007. The petitioner obtained interim order of stay of dispossession suppressing the fact that the possession was already taken on 16-4-2007. This is the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents. 11. In the counter affidavit filed by R.5, the Executive Director of M/s.Sri City (P) Ltd., had sworn to the counter affidavit. An objection had been taken that the Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also stated that the schedule lands had been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer / Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati in March, 2007 after following due process of law as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act in March, 2007 and handed over to the APIIC in may, 2007. The APIIC sold the lands to M/s.Sri City (P) Ltd., in September, 2007 for the purpose of development of the Industrial Park. M/s.Sri City (P) Ltd., as required by law has discharged its statutory obligation and spent close to Rs.450 crores on land acquisition proceedings and developing infrastructure at the SEZ site. M/s.Sri City (P) Ltd., in turn has leased out about Ac.25.00 to M/s.VRV Group of Italy, a Multinational Company for the establishment of world class manufacturing facility in March, 2008. The VRV Group since then has taken up construction work at the project site by spending close to Rs.30.00 crores on the construction and related activities. The VRV Group is spending a total of Rs.81 crores on the project. It is scheduled to complete construction and installation of machinery by April, 2009. It is expected to provide direct and indirect employment to about 1500 people of native village. It is further stated that subject lands contended by the writ petitioner would fall under Revenue Village of Siddama Agraharam village of Varadaiahpalem mandal. It is scheduled to complete construction and installation of machinery by April, 2009. It is expected to provide direct and indirect employment to about 1500 people of native village. It is further stated that subject lands contended by the writ petitioner would fall under Revenue Village of Siddama Agraharam village of Varadaiahpalem mandal. The respondent selected one of the most backward areas in the State i.e., Sathyavedu of Chittoor District for setting up of the SEZ. The selection of area was serving twin purposes, mainly the area suits for the requirement of setting up of SEZ and also serves a purpose of developing the backward area by investment of Rs.8,000 to Rs.12,000 crores. This huge development would bring about a positive change in providing employment to about 2 lakh people of local area and people of neighbouring villages apart from enhancing the standards of living conditions. The Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupathi requisitioned for acquisition of lands for an extent of Ac.50.58 cents in Siddama Agraharam village of Varadaiahpalem mandal for establishment of Industrial Park – SEZ. Action has been initiated under Land Acquisition Act, notifying an extent of Ac.106.35 situated in Siddama Agraharam village along with the lands for an extent of Ac.3268.84 cents situated in surrounding villages in Satyavedu and Varadaiahpalem mandals for the said purpose. The lands contended by the petitioner are notified and covered under two notifications vide Notification No.11/2006 and 12/2006 and vide Award Nos.11/2007 and 12/2007 dt.18-3-2007. A perusal of the Award dt.18-3-2007 shows that the petitioner’s son raised an objection during Award enquiry with regard to payment of compensation to one Smt.P.Sarojamma, a close relative of Bhagyamma. Smt.P.Sarojamma claimed the land is in her name, saying that she purchased from Smt.Bhagyamma but could not provide any documentary evidence. The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly referred the matter i.e., payment of compensation with respect to the subject land under Section 30 of the L.A.Act to Sub-Court, Srikalahasthi in March, 2007. The petitioner through his grandmother instead of approaching the Sub-Court, had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.908/2009 by misrepresenting the facts. Interim order of stay of dispossession was granted while the factual position is totally contradictory to the knowledge of the petitioner and her family members. The petitioner through his grandmother instead of approaching the Sub-Court, had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.908/2009 by misrepresenting the facts. Interim order of stay of dispossession was granted while the factual position is totally contradictory to the knowledge of the petitioner and her family members. A further perusal of the Award reveals that lands so claimed by the petitioner apart from the aforementioned, Smt.P.Sarojamma, have been claimed by a total of 20 people from Matherimitta and the Land Acquisition Officer has accordingly paid the compensation to the claimants. It is pertinent to state that neither the petitioner nor her sons and grand-children, who are all residents of Matherimitta village, which is adjacent to the suit schedule lands, raised any objection during either the Award enquiry conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer or while disbursing the payment which was done through the Demand Drafts and happened at Siddam Agraharam village, adjacent to Matherimitta. The details of the payments made to the Awardees, as per the Award, are as follows:- Sl. No. Sy. The details of the payments made to the Awardees, as per the Award, are as follows:- Sl. No. Sy. No. Extent Award No. Awardee Name Remarks Registered Doc.No.&Date 1 8/13 0.15 A-11/07 Yella Ramanaiah S/o.Chinnakuppaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.29; Rs.87000/- 7/12/2007-1827/2007 (Acs.0.29cents) registered 2 9/17 0.13 A-11/07 Acs.0.14 cents paid to Yella Subramanyam S/o.Gopalaiah Rs.42000/- Ac.0.15 cents paid to Bandili Guravaiah, S/o.Munaswamy, Rs.45,000/- 7/12/2007-1827/2007 (Acs.0.15cents) registered 3 9/5 0.17 A-11/07 B.Chengaiah, S/o.Munaswamy Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.33 Rs.99000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.33cents) Registered 4 9/9 0.08 A-11/07 Natham Bhasker s/o.Veeraswamy Compensation paid Rs.24000/-10/5/2007-693/2007 5 10/16 0.05 A-11/07 Yella Krishnaiah, S/o.Chengaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents; Rs.30000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.10cents) Registered 6 11/1 0.40 A-11/07 Bandili Guravaiah S/o.Munaswamy Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.43 cents; Rs.129000/- 7/12/2007-1827/2007 (Acs.0.43cents) registered 7 A-11/07 Chittiboyana Munirathnamma W/o.Peda Chengaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.16 cents; Rs.48000/- 7/12/2007-1827/2007 (Acs.0.16cents) registered 8 A-11/07 M.Seenaiah, S/o.Chengaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents; Rs.30000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.10cents) Registered 9 A-11/07 Reddy Muniramaiah S/o.Chinnasubbaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents; Rs.33000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.11cents) Registered 10 11/12 0.06 A-11/07 Yella Ademma W/o.Krishnaiah Compensation paid Rs.18000/-10/5/2007-693/2007 11 12/12 0.15 A-11/07 Gogula Munikrishnaiah S/o.Ramakrishnaiah Compensation paid Rs.45000/-7/12/2007-1827/2007 12 12/13 0.13 A-11/07 Katari Bhaskar S/o.Chinnaiah Compensation paid Rs.39000/-10/5/2007-693/2007 13 12/17 0.15 A-11/07 M.Seenaiah S/o.Chengaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents; Rs.36000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.12cents) Registered 14 A-11/07 Sammanna Vasanthamma W/o.Chengaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.14 cents; Rs.42000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.14cents) Registered 15 12/4 0.09 A-11/07 Yella Subramanyam s/o.Gopalaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents; Rs.21000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.07cents) Registered 16 A-11/07 Sammanna Vasanthamma W/o.Chengaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.16 cents; Rs.48000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.16cents) Registered 17 13/14 0.15 A-11/07 Goura Thulasamma W/o.Srinivasulu Compensation paid Rs.45000/-10/5/2007-693/2007 18 13/6 0.04 A-11/07 K.Munirathnam Reddy, S/o.Venkata Munichanga Reddy Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.04 cents; Rs.12000/- 7/12/2007-1827/2007 19 13/7 0.16 A-11/07 Goura Thulasamma, W/o.Srinivasulu Compensation paid Rs.48000/-. 10/5/2007-693/2007 20 14/4 0.55 A-11/07 Kayyala Krishnaiah S/o.Munaswamy Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents; Rs.33000/-. 10/5/2007-693/2007 20 14/4 0.55 A-11/07 Kayyala Krishnaiah S/o.Munaswamy Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents; Rs.33000/-. 7/12/2007-1827/2007 (Acs.0.11cents) registered 21 14/7 0.16 A-11/07 Gogula Munikrishnaiah S/o.China Venkataiah Compensation paid Rs.48000/-10/5/2007-693/2007 22 16/16 0.85 A-11/07 Avula Raghavaiah, S/o.Lakshmaiah Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.19 cents; Rs.57000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.19cents) Registered 23 17/19 0.60 A-11/07 Kayyala Munivelu S/o.Munaswamy Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents; Rs.90000/- 7/12/2007-1827/2007 (Acs.0.30cents) registered 24 17/19 0.60 A-11/07 Gunimani Munemma W/o.Subramanyam Compensation paid to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents; Rs.90000/- 10/5/2007-693/2007 (Ac.0.30cents) Registered 25 17/2 0.15 A-11/07 Gogula Munikrishnaiah S/o.Chinna Venkataiah Compensation paid Rs.45000/-10/5/2007-693/2007 26 17/4 0.16 A-11/07 Gogula Munikrishnaiah S/o.Chinna Venkataiah Compensation paid Rs.48000/-. 10/5/2007-693/2007 Further page No.10 and 11 of the Award 11/2006 clearly shows that Mrs.Bhagyamma, the petitioner and her 3 sons namely, K.Rami Reddy, K.Munirathnam Reddy and K.Satish, have participated in Award enquiry conducted by responding to Section 4(1) AND 6 Notifications have also claimed and collected the compensation amount from the Land Acquisition Officer way back in the year 2007 through Demand Drafts. The details of which are as follows:- Name Extent Sy.No. Compensation paid K. Bhagyamma Ac.3.12 3/2B, 5/7, 7/1 Rs.7,97,500/- (DD No.839186, dt.4-6-2007 drawn on SBI, Varadayapalem) K. Satish Ac.1.23 5/6, 22/1 Rs.3,07,500/- (DD No.838190, dt.17-4-2007 drawn on SBI, Varadayapalem) K.Rami Reddy Ac.1.23 5/6, 22/1 Rs.3,07,500/- (DD No.845420, dt.26-11-2007 drawn on SBI, Varadayapalem) K. Munirathnam Ac.1.28 5/6, 13/6, 22/1 Rs.3,22,500/- (DD No.312460, dt.10-1-2008 drawn on SBI, Varadayapalem) It is also stated that petitioner had deliberately suppressed all facts and made wrong and untrue statements. The other allegations also had been specifically denied in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the said counter affidavit. 12. A reply affidavit was filed again reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also explaining the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits. It is stated that in reply to para 7 of the counter affidavit it was placed that the Draft Declaration was published on 10-11-2006 and the name of the petitioner was not appeared in Section 6 declaration and as such the petitioner made a representation/objection dated 23-12-2006 to 2nd and 3rd respondents. It is stated that in reply to para 7 of the counter affidavit it was placed that the Draft Declaration was published on 10-11-2006 and the name of the petitioner was not appeared in Section 6 declaration and as such the petitioner made a representation/objection dated 23-12-2006 to 2nd and 3rd respondents. It is also stated that the State while exercising eminent domain power has to act with utmost caution and cannot rely upon the reports submitted by the teams and cannot Award compensation as per enjoyment without verifying the ground realities as to who is the real owner of the lands. In fact, the respondents are in the habit of making false statements and thereby misleading the Court in collusion with so-called awardees for extraneous consideration, inspite of representation dt.23-12-2006 made by the petitioner. Further it is stated that insofar as the land to an extent of Ac.0.35 ½ cents in Sy.No.46/4 is concerned, the respondents stated that the petitioner made an objection that the deceased petitioner purchased the said land by a registered document vide No.399/70, dt.7-7-70. Though the respondents stated that one Muddu Munisekhar is claiming right over the said land without any documentary evidence, the respondents have referred the same under Section 30 to the Civil Court. Further it is stated that though the petitioner made a representation dt.23-12-2006 to the respondents, they have ignored the same and paid compensation to third parties without there being any documentary evidence, on the other hand insofar as an extent of Ac.0.35 ½ cents in Sy.No.46/4 is concerned, they referred the matter to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The respondents intentionally and fraudulently avoided the payment of compensation to the petitioner on extraneous considerations. Further it is stated that while making compensation or passing Award, the respondents have to take it into account the ground realities but not possession over the lands. The deceased petitioner purchased the land way back in 1970 and it is not within the ambit of the respondents to decide the title or possession over the property. Thus, again the specific stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition had been reiterated and specific stand had been taken that when certain survey numbers are covered by the sale deed, referring only certain survey numbers and not referring the other survey numbers would be bad in law. 13. Thus, again the specific stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition had been reiterated and specific stand had been taken that when certain survey numbers are covered by the sale deed, referring only certain survey numbers and not referring the other survey numbers would be bad in law. 13. The Counsel for writ petitioner placed strong reliance on GUBBALA CHINNA GANGA RAO v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ( 2009 (2) ALT 693 ) wherein the learned Judge at para 7 observed as hereunder:- “The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition placed before me the record, which clearly shows that in respect of the entire extent of Ac.31.12 cents a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act was passed. Indisputably, the petitioners are the registered owners of the property in question and their names are not shown in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that the petitioners’ names were not mutated in the Revenue Records, in my opinion, that by itself does not offer a reasonable excuse for the Land Acquisition Officer to ignore the claims of the actual owners of the property. The Land Acquisition Officer is expected to gather information from the Sub-Registrar’s Office to know whether any registered sale transactions have taken place in respect of the property before the same is notified for acquisition. Thus, mere absence of mutation in Revenue Records does not absolve the Land Acquisition Officer from the obligation of collecting the necessary information as to the true owner of the property at the time of issuing notification. There is, therefore some justification for the petitioners in complaining that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated behind their back. Thus, mere absence of mutation in Revenue Records does not absolve the Land Acquisition Officer from the obligation of collecting the necessary information as to the true owner of the property at the time of issuing notification. There is, therefore some justification for the petitioners in complaining that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated behind their back. The records also do not show that notices were served on the petitioners under Section 9(3) of the Act.” Further reliance was placed on VAJJA KOTESWARA RAO AND OTHERS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS ( 1979 (1) ALT 65 ) wherein the learned Judge of this Court while dealing with Sections 4(1), 6, 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act held that the name of owner of the land sought to be acquired not mentioned in notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 Notice not issued to such persons before passing Award, acquisition not invalid but Award passed against such person is invalid. Further reliance also was placed on SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT v. EEDARA KRISHNA ( 2008 (6) ALT 617 (DB)) wherein the Division Bench observed at paras 19 and 20 as hereunder:- “The factual matrix of the present case is essentially different from the situations which were before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases and the same cannot be held to lay down the proposition of law that the authorities are at liberty to violate the procedure prescribed in the Act. In exercise of its right of eminent domain, the State is bound to follow the procedural norms prescribed in the Act while dlepriving an individual of his property. This valuable right of the individual cannot be trampled upon callously by the authorities by showing scant regard to the procedural safeguards provided in the Act. These safeguards have been prescribed so as to obviate any possibility of misuse or arbitrariness in exercise of the vast and potent powers vested in the authorities in this regard. It is also to be noticed that under Section 9(1) of the Act, the Collector is required to cause public notice with regard to the intent of taking possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land should be made to him. It is also to be noticed that under Section 9(1) of the Act, the Collector is required to cause public notice with regard to the intent of taking possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land should be made to him. Similarly, under Section 9(3) of the Act, the Collector is required to serve notice to the same effect on the occupier of the land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein. It is clear that the above provisions envisage that the notices under Section 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act are to be issued prior to the taking over of the possession of the land. In the present case, according to the authorities themselves, the notices under Sections 9(1) and 9(3) of the Act were issued on 22-11-93, while the possession of the land is said to have been taken on 5-7-92. This clearly demonstrates manifest and blatant violation of the procedure as laid down in the said provision.” Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Larger Bench in REPAKA BHYRAVAMURTHY AND ANOTHER v. MUPPIDI VENKATARAJU ( 2001 (5) ALD 815 (LB)) wherein at paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 39 the Larger Bench held as hereunder:- “Before referring to the case laws on the point, we may point out that the interpretation clause contained in Section 3 of the Act, which deals with definitions of various expressions under the Act starts with the words ‘In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context’. Thus, ‘person interested’ as defined in Section 3(b) shall have to be given a broader meaning if a situation so warrants. The Act doesn’t define the expression ‘person interested’ giving its ordinary or legal meaning. The definition embraces within its fold as persons included therein. The definition of ‘person interested’ is, therefore, not exhaustive. It would, therefore, not be correct to contend that only the persons mentioned therein can be called as ‘persons interested’ for all intent and purport and no other person can be said to be a ‘person interested’. In any event, a person claiming interest in payment of compensation, must, by necessary implication, have an interest in the land sought to be acquired including a right of easement or the amount of compensation. The Collector, while preparing an Award exercises a quasi-judicial function. In any event, a person claiming interest in payment of compensation, must, by necessary implication, have an interest in the land sought to be acquired including a right of easement or the amount of compensation. The Collector, while preparing an Award exercises a quasi-judicial function. Section 11 of the Act enables the Collector to make an enquiry as regards the persons interested in the land. He is not bound to award compensation only in favour of persons who are before him. He may, subject to the result of his enquiry, pass an award apportioning the compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. The Collector, while forwarding the statement to the Court in terms of Section 19 of the Act is also required to furnish the names of the persons whom he has reason to think as interested in such land. In terms of Section 21 of the Act, the scope of the enquiry arising under Section 19 shall be restricted to a consideration of the interests of the persons likely to be affected by the objection. A person, thus, for all intent and purport, may be interested in the reference sought by a person although he had not appeared before the Collector. The submission of the learned Counsel to the effect that in Neyvely Lignite Corpn., Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 221 ) the Apex Court was concerned only with a matter falling under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be accepted in view of the following observations: We cannot limit the operation of Section 3(b) in conjunction with sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act within a narrow compass. The right given under sub-section (2) of Section 50 is in addition to and not in substituting of or in derogation to all the incidental, logical and consequential rights following from the concept of fair and just procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice. Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act enables the local authority or company concerned at whose instance the land has been acquired to appear and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act enables the local authority or company concerned at whose instance the land has been acquired to appear and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The logical corollary of the said provision in the event the submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is to be accepted in case where the local authorities or the company had not appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer, it must be held that it is disentitled from appearing in a reference at a subsequent stage. The decision of the Apex Court in Neyvely Lignite (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the company or the local authority shall continue to be person interested and/or person aggrieved even if they have not appeared either before the Land Acquisition Collector or before the Civil Court in a reference. In a given case, a person may not even know that the lands are going to be acquired and thus, he will not be in a position to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector. Even a notice might not have been served upon him. It would be harsh if a person who had been kept in dark or who has been a victim of some fraudulent act, is not impleaded as a party. In such a situation, we are of the opinion, that interest of justice demands that he should be impleaded as a party. The procedures as is well known are only hand-maids of justice and they can suitably be moulded to do complete justice between the parties.” The Counsel for 5th respondent no doubt relied on SWAIKA PROPERTIES (P) LTD. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ( (2008) 4 SCC 695 ) wherein the aspect of maintainability of the Writ Petition and the dismissal thereof on the ground of delay or lapse had been dealt with. 14. It is no doubt true that prima facie when certain survey numbers are covered by the self-same sale deed referring the matter in relation to certain survey numbers only to be decided by the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, may not be justified. But however, this may have to be appreciated in the back-drop of the facts. It is not as though Smt.Bhagyamma, the original petitioner and the present legal representative – Munirathnam were not aware of these proceedings. But however, this may have to be appreciated in the back-drop of the facts. It is not as though Smt.Bhagyamma, the original petitioner and the present legal representative – Munirathnam were not aware of these proceedings. For the reasons best known, at appropriate time they had not raised the objections. It is needless to say that the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to be followed. Certain submissions were made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that inasmuch as appropriate objections had not been raised at appropriate time as contemplated by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, at present no positive direction can be given to refer the matter relating to the other survey numbers covered by the sale deed also under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that such positive direction cannot be given at this stage. It may be that due to the negligence of the writ petitioner – Smt.Bhagyamma and the present legal representative – Munirathnam, this might have happened. In the light of the peculiar fact situation, this Court is of the considered opinion that liberty to be given to the writ petitioner to agitate his rights, if any, for the realisation of the compensation amounts said to have been paid to the third parties under the general Law, if the petitioner is so advised. Except making this observation, nothing else can be done at this stage. The Land Acquisition Officer while disbursing compensation especially in a case of this nature where large scale acquisition had been made could have been more careful and cautious. 15. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.