IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 923 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/06/2008 in WP NO : 33 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Bharathamma, D/o.Savukari Kurva Hanmanthu @ Hanumanthu, Minors, rep.by their mother natural guardian Smt.Shankaramma, W/o.Savukari Kurva Hanumanthu @ Hanumanthu Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist. 2 Jyothi, D/o.Savukari Kurva Hanmanthu @ Hanumanthu Minors, rep.by their mother natural guardian Smt.Shankaramma, W/o.Savukari Kurva Hanumanthu @ Hanumanthu Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist. 3 Bugappa, S/o.Savukari Kurva Hanmanthu @ Hanumanthu, Minors, rep.by their mother natural guardian Smt.Shankaramma, W/o.Savukari Kurva Hanumanthu @ Hanumanthu Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist. 4 Vannappa, S/o.Savukari Kurva Hanmanthu @ Hanumanthu, Minors, rep.by their mother natural guardian Smt.Shankaramma, W/o.Savukari Kurva Hanumanthu @ Hanumanthu Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar Dist. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Revenue Divisional officer/L.A.O., Narayanpet Division, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar Dist. 2 The Dist.Collector, Mahaboobnar. 3 Shavukari Kurva Hanmanthu @ Hanumanthu, S/o.Buggappa @ Erra Balappa, R/o.Sangamoanda Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahboobnagar Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The land admeasuring 7.08 cents at Neredgam village of Maganoor Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District has been acquired. Compensation in respect of the said land has been awarded to respondent No.3. The present appellants claimed right in the amount of compensation and, therefore, they had ﬁled O.S.No.17 of 2003 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. The said suit has been dismissed and an appeal has been filed against the said suit. In the aforestated circumstances, the appellant had ﬁled the petition claiming that they should be awarded part of the compensation, which had been awarded to respondent No.3. The said petition has been rejected because the suit ﬁled by the appellant had been dismissed. In our opinion, the petition has been rightly rejected for the reason that the proper course for the appellant is to proceed with the appeal, which they have ﬁled before the appellate Court. As disputed questions of fact are involved, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was justiﬁed in rejecting the petition. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs leaving it open for the appellants to proceed with the appeal, which they have already filed. ____________________ ANI, R. DAVE, CJ 19th November, 2008 _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR