These writ petitions raised common issues of law and fact. Hence, they are heard and disposed of together.

2. I have heard Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents.

3. In all these writ petitions, the land acquisition proceedings for Lift-IV Canal of Tadipudi Lift Irrigation Scheme of Indira Sagar Project, is questioned by the petitioners. The draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was issued on 2.11.2009 for a total extent of Acs.450-00 in various survey numbers of different villages and the same was published as required under the said provision. The publication thereof was completed by 25.5.2010. Form 3 notices were issued to all the farmers on 4.7.2010 informing them th3t they can file their objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition if they intend to oppose the acquisition and attend the enquiry fixed for 5.8.2010.

4. It is an admitted fact that even though notices were received by the petitioners, they did not attend the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. However, on the objections filed by some of the farmers, enquiry was held in the village on 5.8.2010. The enquiry report submitted by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry on 1.9.2010, was accepted by the Special Collector and the draft declaration was approved on 11.10.2001. The draft declaration was also published as per the statutory requirement and the publication was completed by 18.4.2011. Before completion of publication of the draft declaration, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings.

5. When this case was taken up for hearing on 11.11.2011, Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that since his clients did not participate in the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act as they firmly believed that the proposed excavation of canal is wholly unnecessary as the same would be detrimental to the interests of the farmers of 21 villages and that a fresh opportunity may be given to the petitioners to submit their objections. In the light of this submission, this Court, inter alia, passed the following order:

"In view of the fact that no one has participated in the enquiry under Section SA of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the light of the grievance of the petitioners that the interests of the agriculturists of the 21 villages will be seriously affected, it is felt appropriate to call for a report from the Engineer-In-Chief, Indira Sagar Polavaram Project, Dhavaleswaram, East Godavari District. Accordingly, the Engineer-In-Chief is directed to examine the grievances of the petitioners as raised in WP No.20479/2011.

Sri N. Purnachander Rao s/o. Subba Rao, and five other agriculturists are permitted to submit detailed representations before the Engineer-In-Chief within two weeks from today. After holding appropriate enquiry, the Engineer-In-Chief shall submit a report to this Court on the various objections raised by the petitioners in WP No.20479/2011. The Engineer-In-Chief shall express his opinion as to the utility or otherwise of the proposed sub-canal for Lift No.4 of the Tadipudi Irrigation Scheme for the 21 villages in question, within one month from today."

As directed by this Court, the Engineer-In-Chief, Indira Sagar Polavaram Project, Dhawaleswaram, submitted his detailed report dated 16.4.2012. The petitioners had filed their objections to the said report.

6. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the excavation of Lift-IV canal does not serve the interests of the farmers and that on the contrary, it will be detrimental to' their interests. He has invited the attention of this Court to representation dated 21.11.2011 submitted by some of the petitioners to the Engineer-In-Chief, who was directed to submit his report and stated that th