IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.14243 of 1997 Dated: 08-02-2007 Between: 1. Vodde Gangu Bai, w/o Burenna, aged about 56 years, r/o Palsi village, Kubeer Mandal, Adilabad District and 24 others. ... Petitioners and 1. The Secretary to Government (T.R &B), Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. ... Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not initiating acquisition proceedings, as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for an extent of Ac.25-35 guntas of land situate in Palsi village, Kubeer Mandal of Adilabad District, which was taken possession by the respondents for laying a road from Bhainsa to Palsi and beyond Pallaj of Maharastra State, and forthwith pay the compensation. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, taken possession of the lands belonging to them for the purpose of formation and improvement of the road from Bhainsa via (Chondi) to Palsi and beyond Pallaj of Maharashtra State. It is stated that the residents of Kubeer, Dhar Kubeer, Dodarna and Bailgoan have filed W.P.Nos.16116, 16117 and 16118 of 1995 seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and the same were allowed on 07-12-1995. It is further stated that though the petitioners herein are similarly situate, the respondents while issuing 4 (1) Notification on 02-04-1997 deliberately ignored the legitimate claim of the petitioners. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent. 4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are the owners of the land in question and the said lands were permitted to be used as cart track, but, however, subsequently, the second respondent wanted to lay a pucca road and accordingly pucca road was also laid sometime in the year 1986. From the above it is clear that the lands were taken possession by the second respondent without initiating necessary proceedings under the Act and hence, it can definitely be said that it is deprivation of the petitioners rights and the same is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings by regularizing the acquisition of the petitioners lands made as early as in the year 1986 and pay compensation to them in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.08-02-2007 GLV