IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33229 of 2011 Between: A. Sadanandam … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Revenue (LA) Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33229 of 2011 ORDER:- The petitioner, whose lands were acquired for Outer Ring Road (ORR) project, filed this Writ Petition claiming a two part relief, which is as under: “(a) directing the first respondent to de-notify 9 acres of land in survey No.48 of Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, located on the eastern side of the express highway road leading to outer ring road, or in the alternative. (b) directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application dated 06.05.2009 in accordance with the judgment, dated 06.04.2009, passed in W.P.No.26787 of 2008, after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.” The petitioner along with various other persons, most of whom appeared to be his family members, has filed Writ Petition No.26787 of 2008 for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider and dispose of their representation, dated 24.11.2008, favourably for de-notifying Ac.9.00 of land, which was allegedly left over after laying of ORR. The learned Single judge disposed of the said Writ Petition while giving a finding that while the claim of the petitioners for de- notification appears to be reasonable, nothing can be done by the Courts when once land acquisition proceedings are initiated and concluded. The learned Judge, however, felt that absence of rights in the petitioners demanding de-notification would, however, not preclude respondent Nos.1 and 2 from de-notifying the same, as the purpose of laying Express Highway has already been achieved and that for future requirement lot of Government land is available adjacent to the petitioners’ land. It is not in dispute that this order has attained finality. In the face of the above findings of the learned Single Judge, the first part of the prayer for de-notification claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be accepted. As regards the second part of the prayer, the petitioner averred that without following due process of law, Ac.9.00 of land forming part of larger extent, which was acquired for laying ORR, is now sought to be utilized for construction of a sub-station by respondent No.6. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering and taking a decision on his representation, dated 06.05.2009, in accordance with the direction given in Writ Petition No.26787 of 2008, the official respondents cannot put the land to a different use, namely; for construction of a sub-station. Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even assuming that the acquisition proceedings have got concluded, possession is still remaining with the petitioner and that at any rate the respondents are bound to comply with the provisions of Section 165 of the Electricity Act, 2003 if the land is sought to be put to use for the purpose of construction of a sub-station by respondent No.6. The question whether the land can be put to use for a purpose other than for which it has been acquired or not need not be decided at this stage because the petitioner’s representation is stated to be pending before respondent No.1 and no decision, as directed by this Court in the previous Writ Petition, appears to have been taken by respondent No.1 on the said representation. Therefore, without going into the merits of the various contentions raised by the petitioner, while considering the second part of the prayer, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dispose of the same, as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.26787 of 2008, and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.41289 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.12.2011 ES