IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15150 of 2006 BETWEEN M.Nataraj. ... PETITIONER AND Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T.K. RAGHAVAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION GP FOR REVENUE MR. B.S.S. PRASAD MRS. NARGIS AFSHAN KHAN The Court made the following order: ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in finalizing the award proceedings and paying compensation in respect of his land as illegal and arbitrary. 2. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the only grievance of the petitioner is that his land was acquired and award was passed, which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.No.10102 of 2004 and that in spite of directions in the said writ petition the respondents failed to pass a fresh award and fix the correct market value of the land. 3. A detailed counter is filed by the respondents stating that the respondents initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire land to provide house sites to needy persons in Yemmiganur Town of Kurnool District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur selected suitable land in an extent of Ac.41.88 cents in Sy.No.17/A1A and submitted proposals to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, who in turn submitted the proposals to the District Collector, Kurnool and after approval, the draft notification and the draft declaration were published in the newspapers. At first instance, 80% of the compensation was paid to all the landowners including the petitioner for his extent of land admeasuring Ac.3.17 cents in Sy.No.19/A1 acquired from him on 22.01.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner herein and other landowners without receiving the balance 20% compensation approached this Court in W.P.No.10102 of 2004 questioning the award and the said writ petition was allowed with a direction to pass fresh award. Pursuant to the directions in the said writ petition, it is stated that further award is passed on 16.02.2006 and notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the petitioner and all the landowners on 19.04.2006 to receive the 20% balance compensation. Out of the 21 awardees, 19 awardees received notices and balance compensation whereas the petitioner and his brother refused to receive the notices under Section 12(2) of the Act, as such, the balance compensation was kept in revenue deposit. 4. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued before the award was passed and award was passed without fixing appropriate compensation, the copy of the award is not placed on record and the award, as such, is not questioned. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is clear that the only grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of directions of this Court in W.P.No.10102 of 2004 the award is not passed by the respondents. As is evident from the counter affidavit that fresh award is passed in the year 2006 pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.10102 of 2004 and that the petitioner has refused to receive notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, no further relief can be granted in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J October 26, 2010 DSK