noticed that the name of the protected tenant was shown in the draft notification. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the third respondent-Land Acquisition Officer to have taken decision in the matter only after duly considering the claim of the petitioners. However, the third respondentLand Acquisition Officer does not appear to have paid any attention in that regard. On the other hand, the proceedings would show that he merely went by the statement of the respondents 5 and 6. It is true that the respondents 5 and 6 set up their claim claiming that their father Chanduri Balaiah was the sole pattadar and possessor of the subject land and their rights were recognized by the Revenue Authorities. They also pleaded that the protected tenant never cultivated the land during his life time and that the original protected tenant had no legal heirs. Thus, when rival claims were presented, it is expected that the Land Acquisition Officer should consider the same and come to an independent decision. Unfortunately, the third respondent-Land Acquisition Officer had just endorsed the statement of the respondents 5 and 6 without even recording the correctness or otherwise of the claim set up by the respondents 5 and 6. The said award, thus suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. For the said reason, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration.
