THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23470 and 24783 of 2010 Common order: The petitioners state that the respondents acquired their land by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After completing the acquisition process, respondent No.3 passed separate awards fixing the market value of the land at Rs.6,000/- per acre. Aggrieved thereby, some of the land losers, including the petitioners, sought reference of the matter to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. In the references, the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, enhanced the compensation from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. Dis-satisfied by the enhancement, all the land losers, including the petitioners, preferred appeals before this Court, and this Court, enhanced the compensation from Rs.18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.22.000/- respectively. Now the petitioners contending that the respondents are not paying the enhanced compensation filed by the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondent to pay them enhanced compensation. Respondent No.3 filed separate counters in both the writ petitions. In the counter filed in W.P. No. 23470 of 2010, it is stated that though the land of the mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Gontla Seethamma, was acquired, she did not seek enhancement, and this is evident from the fact that the High Court in the judgment rendered in appeal in A.S. No. 448 of 2001, did not grant any relief to her, and when no relief was granted to her, the question of granting the enhanced compensation to the petitioner does not arise. While in the counter filed in W.P. No. 24783 of 2010, respondent No.3 stated that they have already deposited the enhanced compensation as per the judgments of the civil courts in respect of the land losers. That though the names of the first petitioner and late Sri. Vema Simachalam and late Sri. Akkala Chandrayya, the predecessors-in-title of petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 were shown as parties in the Memorandum of Appeal, no relief was granted by this Court, and no decree having been passed in their favour, the petitioners are not entitled to enhanced compensation. Having regard to the averments made by respondent No.3 in the counters filed by him, and considering the fact that the petitioners, whose lands were acquired, are also entitled for enhanced compensation, as the judgments in the appeals, did not advert to the case of the petitioners, even though they are parties to it, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to file review petitions in the appeals, seeking review of the judgment passed in the appeals. Accordingly, as prayed for by the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioners to file review petitions in the appeals seeking review of the judgments passed therein. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Dated: 28th January, 2011 KSR