THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1124 of 2001 25.2.2008 Between: Mangamsetti Kunchamma, W/o.Satyam And others … Petitioners and Steel Plant represented by its Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1124 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioners are statedly owners of Acs.0.20 of land in survey No.49/6 situated at Duvvada village of Gajuwaka Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. The land was acquired for Visakhapatnam steel plant. After passing notice of Award being No.12/81B, dated 06.8.1983, Rs.3,932.43 ps was granted towards compensation apportioning the same among three shareholders. Petitioners allege that the land acquired was allotted to displaced persons whose lands have been acquired for steel plant. Petitioners were not provided alternate lands. They are allegedly in possession of the land and when authorities are trying to allot the land to others, they filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus restraining respondents from allotting the land and not to interfere with possession. Respondent filed counter affidavit on 12.10.2006. It is stated that the land totally admeasuring Acs.0.85 in survey No.49/6 was acquired under Award No.12 of 1983, dated 06.8.1983, for Visakhapatnam steel plant. M/s.Pediredla Ramulu, Apparao and Nagaraju, who are the owners of land, were paid compensation. The land was taken possession and handed over to Visakhapatnam steel plant. A portion of acquired land was utilized for rail facility and remaining land was utilized for rehabilitation of persons, who have been displaced. Petitioners were not awardees and they are not owners of land as per the Award. Though counter affidavit is filed a year back, reply affidavit is not filed. A dispute is raised, in the counter, regarding ownership of the land. Such a dispute cannot be decided in a writ petition. Secondly, petitioners appear to be under impression that the land, which is in their possession, shall be reconveyed to them. Law does not permit reconveyance of the land, which is acquired after paying compensation. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ February 25, 2008 (V.V.S.RAO, J) YS