IMPORTANT POINT
The right to object under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act is substantive and must be effectively exercised, ensuring due process in land acquisition.

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Smt. D.Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for the HMDA.

2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring 575 Square Yards in Sy.No.43 to 47 and 49 Part, situated at Madhapur village of Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same through registered sale deed No.9688/2000 dated 25.10.2000. While it being so, the respondent No.2 issued Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) on 28.02.2005 proposing to acquire certain lands at Madhapur for formation of road. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued Draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act 25.03.2006 mentioning the Survey No.43, however, the said survey number was not mentioned in the earlier Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. On coming to know that the part of the subject house of the petitioner going to be affected in the widening of the road, the petitioner filed a representation along with the copy of sale deed before the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer issued letter on 06.02.2008 stating that the land in Sy.No.43, to an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas is notified for the purpose of acquisition for formation of the road from Madhapur Hitech City to Western side of Durgam Chervu Road and the land in Sy.No.43 has been declared as surplus and the case at the stage of 10 (6), and asked to submit the required document on or before 14.03.2008. Thereafter, Award has been passed on 25.03.2008, without there being any reference of amendment to 4(1) of the Act.

3. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that Land Acquisition Officer issued notice of Award in Form-9 under Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1894 to the petitioner stating that award has been passed and part area of in Sy.No.43 is covered under the park, road, part was declared as surplus and hence no compensation was awarded. As the subject property was notified under Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioner had no occasion to participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and consequent to the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act is contrary to the procedure and Nil Award in respect of the subject property is arbitrary and illegal and requested this Court to set aside the same by allowing the Writ Petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for HMDA basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.2 submits that after completion of the Award enquiry, the petitioner has filed the representation on 08.10.2007 for payment of compensation in respect of the land in Sy.No.43, Plot No.15, and hence it is not possible to restart the award enquiry. As the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, has informed that the land in No.43, plot Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 were declared as surplus land and on humanitarian grounds only a General Notice No.LA/723/004 dated 07.03.2008 was issued to the petitioner to submit any order of the Government whether her land is regularized for payment of compensation, but she did not do so and hence the Land Acquisition Officer passed Nil Award as the said plot was not regularized.

5. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the amendment was given to the 4(1) Notification vide Gazette RR No.7 dated 06.03.2006 and in the said amendment notice it was clearly mentioned that an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas in Sy.No.43 was intended for acquisition. The Land Acquisition authorities have followed due procedure and award has been passed by the then Land Acquisition Officer and Land Acquisition Proceedings have been completed and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly the part of the subject plot in No.43 of the petitioner was acqui