ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

‘to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling of the records relating to Draft Notification under Section 4(1) published in Gazette No.172, Kadapa dated 16.07.1999, the Draft Declaration under Section 6 published in Gazette No.173, Kadapa, dated 17.07.1999 and award No.11/2001-2002, dated 14.02.2002 issued and passed by the 2nd respondent herein respectively declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power in utter contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to Petitioner under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in so far as the land (House Plots) in an extent of Ac.3.12 cents in Sy.Nos.497 of Kothapalli Village, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District under registered Sale Deed dated 26.04.1974 belonging to me and pass….

2. This Court has heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Standing Counsel for APIIC and learned counsel for unofficial respondents.

3. During the course of hearing as the writ petitioner died, his legal representatives come on record. For the sake of convenience the ‘writ petitioner’ alone is referred though his legal heirs are on record and are now contesting the matter.

4. The grievance of the petitioner in this case which is well articulated by Sri C.Prakash Reddy is that he has acquired land measuring Ac.3.12 cents in Sy.No.497 of Kothapalli village, Proddatur Town under a registered sale deed dated 26.04.1974. The petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property even as on date of filing of the writ petition. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, in January 2009, staff of respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to form a road in the property. The petitioner objected to the same and thereafter it transpired that the respondents are claiming rights in the property stating that the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by the State Government and handed over to the 4th respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time, the petitioner received any notice whatsoever of the acquisition. It is submitted categorically that the procedure stipulated under the Act was not followed and by invoking urgency clause, high handed action was taken for a large extent of land, but it is asserted that the petitioner’s land measuring Ac.3.12 cents is still in his possession and enjoyment only. Learned counsel points out that the essential averments raised by him with regard to the possession even in January, 2009 are not denied in the counter. Learned counsel submits that documents obtained under the Right to Information Act reveal that nobody has received the compensation for the land. Therefore, it is clear as per the learned counsel that no attempt was made to serve the requisite notices at every stage as warranted by the Act. He points out that the Act is expropriatory legislation and that therefore, its provisions should be very seriously viewed. It is also pointed out that K.Konda Reddy, who is the awardeee died on 08.03.2001, whereas the award was passed on 14.02.2002. This shows clear non-application of mind according to the learned counsel. He also points out that in the award itself, it is mentioned that payment would be made in the future either to the pattadar, his legal representatives or ‘the rightful owners’. This indicates clearly that the procedure was not followed by the respondents in acquiring the petitioner’s land. Learned counsel points out that even if the documents filed by the respondent-State pursuant to the order of this Court are examined, the name of the writ petitioner K.Ramasubba Reddy is visible in the publication made in the Andhr