Dated : 26.09.2014 Between:
Sayed Yakoob Saheb S/o. Sayyed Kasim, Aged 62 yrs, Occu : Cultivation, R/o.Near New Mosque, Sayyed Street, Thangallamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District & 2 others .. Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru & 4 others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
ORDER :
The land acquisition proceedings were initiated proposing to acquire huge extent of land including land to an extent of Ac.12.50 cents in Survey No.14/1 and Ac.1.36 guntas in Survey No.14/2 of Ganapavarm Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District, and award was passed on 12.12.2012. On the above extent of land Sri Gadde Babu Rajendra Prasad, participated in the land acquisition proceedings and consented for passing of an award and was paid compensation. All along petitioner kept quiet, but he now raises the contention that illegally acquisition proceedings concluded and compensation was paid to a wrong person and that the petitioner can not be dispossessed without following the due procedure from his land.
2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was the original owner of the land and therefore he should have been given notice and opportunity should have been afforded to him before finalizing the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner claims to have filed a representation on 01.12.2012 ventilating his grievance. Thereafter, he kept quiet.
3. As per the instructions furnished to the learned Government Pleader, it is clear that the revenue records disclose the name of Gadde Babu Rajendra Prasad and accordingly he was allowed to participate in land acquisition proceedings and was paid compensation.
4. Since there was no protest lodged during the acquisition proceedings culminating in passing of award or at the time of payment of compensation, it is not open to the petitioner to allege that the action of the respondents in not subjecting the petitioner to land acquisition proceedings and paying the compensation to another person as illegal. In the facts of this case, I see no error in the procedure followed by the land acquisition officer in acquiring the said land and paying the compensation to person identified as eligible.
5. I see no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed. This order does not preclude the petitioner to assert his title and to seek further remedies, if he is otherwise entitled. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 26th September, 2014 Rds