IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16990 of 2011 Between: Smt. Padmamma … Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.R.K. Gargeya Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri B. Shiva Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16990 of 2011 ORDER:- The petitioner, who claims that she has a share and interest over Ac.2.30 guntas in Sy.No.192/22 of Srinagar Vidllage of Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed this Writ Petition for a Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to pay her share of compensation. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that respondent No.3 has received only 50% of the compensation. This submission of the learned counsel is accepted by Sri B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. The petitioner pleaded that she has made a representation, which was received by respondent No.2 on 02.05.2011 and had made an endorsement to stop disbursement of second instalment till finalization of the issue. No counter affidavit is filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he has stated that through a notarised affidavit, the petitioner has given up her claim over the property in question. Admittedly, the property was assigned to the father of the petitioner and respondent No.3. The dispute pertains to apportionment o f ex gratia amount for utilizing the land in question for a public purpose. Since the petitioner raised a dispute relating to receiving of compensation, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 decides the same before releasing the second instalment of ex gratia amount. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner qua respondent No.3 and decide the same, after giving the petitioner and respondent No.3 an opportunity of personal hearing before disbursing the balance ex gratia amount. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.20415 and 25533 of 2011 and WVMP.No.2826 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.11.2011 ES