THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 26032 of 1996 DATE: 19-01-2007 Between : Kore Sarvaiah and another … Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 26032 of 1996 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) to the lands of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.3.00 situated in Sy.No.249 and 198 of Chillapally village, Naredchela Mandal, Nalgonda District, which was allegedly submerged under Chillipally water tank. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is pleaded that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.249 and the second petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 situated in Sy.No.198 of Chillapally village, Naredcherla Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is claimed that the above said lands were submerged along with other lands situated in Sy.Nos. 89, 90, 91, 92, 177 and 247, belonging to one C.Lakshminarasimha Rao, due to advent of Nagarjuna Sagar Project Water Left Canal, which resulted in increase of the capacity of the Chillapally tank. It is contended that though the petitioners made several representations requesting the respondents to pay compensation following the procedure prescribed under the Act, they failed to consider. Hence, this writ petition. In response to the notice ordered, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Naredcherla filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations and stating that the first petitioner is the pattedar in respect of Ac.0.20 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.249, but not Ac.1.00 as claimed by him. Similarly, the claim of the second petitioner that he is the owner of Ac.2.00 situated in Sy.No.198 has been denied and it is stated that as a matter of fact Sy.No.198 admeasuring Ac.0.11 guntas stands in the name of one Vengala Ranga Reddy and the second petitioner has nothing to do with the same as per the revenue records. It is also stated that the Sy.No.249 claimed by the first petitioner is situated in the down stream of the tank bund and did not come under the submergence. It is also explained that the District Collector, Nalgonda had called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer and after due verification, the report was submitted furnishing the particulars of submergence. As per the said report Sy.No.249, which is situated in the down steam of the tank bund was not at all submerged. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit remained un-rebutted since the petitioners did not file any affidavit in reply nor any other material is placed before this Court to substantiate the plea that their lands were submerged. Hence, the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. However, learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.13482 of 1994, dated 02-05-1997, contended that the petitioners are entitled for the same relief. It is true that the petitioner in W.P.No.13482 of 1994 by name C.Lakshminarasimha Rao also sought for compensation claiming that his lands came under submergence of the Chillapally tank. However, a perusal of the order in W.P.No.13482 of 1994 shows that the lands owned by the petitioner therein are situated in different Survey numbers and after calling for a report from the District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, it was found by this Court that some portion of the land came under submergence and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to initiate proceedings under the Act for fixation of compensation. As noted above, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the instant case shows that the lands of the petitioners herein did not come under the submergence. There is no other material to establish the claim of the petitioners that their lands came under submergence. Hence, it cannot be held that they stand on the same footing and consequently this Writ Petition cannot be disposed of in terms of the order in W.P.No.13482 of 1994. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 19-01-2007 KLP