The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.11571 of 2007 Date: 18.07.2011 Between: Maremalla Satyanarayana ..... Petitioner AND 1.The District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt.K.M.J.D.Syama Sundari Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in paying compensation in respect of Ac.1-16 cents of land in Survey No.53/B2 of Kadium Pothavaram Village, Mylavaram Taluk, (presently Ibrahimpatnam Mandal), Krishna District, as per award No.93 of 1980, dated 30-09-1980, and also Order, dated 27th April, 1989, in W.P.No.16447 of 1987, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to release the compensation amount for the above-mentioned land. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that he is the owner of the aforementioned land; that the said land was acquired for excavation of Kondapalli Major of N.S. Canal and; that despite his request, compenstion was not paid. It is further stated that the petitioner approached this Court, earlier, by filing W.P.No.16447 of 1987, which was disposed of on 27-04-1989 and that since then he has been going around the Offices of respondents by giving representations, but, so far, no compensation has been paid even though the subject land was acquired as far back as the year 1980. The petitioner relied on the judgment, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in A.S.No.4501 of 2004 relating to the neighbouring land, and has made a representation on 27-12-2006, in response to which the District Collector, appeared to have addressed letter, dated 16-01-2007, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, for sending complete details for reply and that subsequently, there is no response. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has earlier filed W.P.No.16447 of 1987 for a Mandamus to declare the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land as per award No.93 of 1980, dated 30-09- 1980, including the award, as null and void. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by Order, dated 27th April, 1989, without any relief granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has, for almost eight years, kept quiet and thereafter, made a representation to the Sub- Collector, Vijayawada, with a request to refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). In response to the same, the Sub-Collector called upon the petitioner to appear before him along with relevant records. Evidently, the petitioner has not produced any record before the Sub- Collector, but he has again made a representation on 31- 01-2000 to the Sub-Collector with the same grievance. The petitioner also appeared to have approached the Legal Services Authority subsequently, and made representations to the respondents, who failed to redress his grievances. From a perusal of the record, this Court is unable to find out as to what exactly is the grievance of the petitioner. As noted above, in the previous Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus to declare the entire acquisition proceedings including the award as null and void. In his subsequent communication sent to the respondents, he kept on making request for reference of the dispute to a competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, obviously, for the purpose of enhancement of compensation fixed under the award. If the petitioner’s grievance is with reference to the market value, he shall be able to substantiate that he has filed the application for such reference within the prescribed time under Section 18 of the Act. No such plea has been raised let alone substantiating such a plea. The petitioner failed to get any relief in the previous Writ Petition. Now, he turns round and seeks declaration that the inaction of the respondents, in paying compensation, is illegal and unconstitutional. The entire approach of the petitioner borders on inconsistency and vagueness. In this confused factual scenario, it is impossible for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioner much less the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14396 of 2007, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 18th July, 2011 LUR