IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20409 of 2008 Between: 1 Isarapu appa rao, S/o. Late Appanna, R/o. D.No.50-2-25, Seethampeta, Visakhapatnam, 2 Isarapu Perumallu, S/o. Late Appanna, R/o. D.No.50-7-27/1, Seethampeta, Visakhapatnam, ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Land Acqusition Officer and Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) , Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. 2 Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Secretary, situated at Udyoga Bhavan, VUDA Buildings, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to call for the records relating to the land acquisition proceedings issued under section 4(1) dated 19-2-85 and 23-7-1986 and declare the action of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to reconvey the land of the petitioners of an extent of 600 sq.yards in S.No.40/IB situated in Gandhi Nagar, Resapuvaripalem Village, Visakhapatnam, as the purpose for which their land was acquired was vitiated and this Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass a consequential direction to a point an Advocate Commissioner to examine the signiﬁcance of the service road according to the 2nd layout of the road plan and submit his report to this Hon'ble court. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.B.GAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the owners of Ac.0.03 cents of land in survey No.40/1B situated at Resapuvanipalem Village, Visakhapatnam District. The same was notiﬁed for acquisition, way back in the year 1985. They state that the respondents herein proposed to acquire certain land with a view to provide link to 40 feet road and thereafter, to national highway, and accordingly, a notiﬁcation, dated 19.02.1985, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), was published proposing to acquire the land of one Mr.Isarapu Pydithalli. They contend that yielding to the pressure of Mr.Pydithalli, the respondents have changed the alignment and issued a notiﬁcation, dated 23.07.1988, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners, together with the structure thereon. Petitioners claim to have made several representations to respondents 2 and 3, and they, in turn, have called for remarks as to why the alignment shall not be changed. Their grievance is that though remarks were called for, no action has been taken thereon and state that even now the road in the acquired portion was not laid. They pray for quashing of the notification, dated 23.07.1988 and reconveyance of the land. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. With the conclusion of proceedings under the Act, the land stood vested in the concerned authority. At this length of time, this Court cannot quash the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act, much less direct the respondents to reconvey the land to the petitioners. In case there was any illegality in the change of alignment of the road to save the property of any individual and if the road has not been laid as yet, respondents 2 and 3 can certainly take note of the same and grant relief to the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to make a representation to respondents 2 and 3, duly enclosing the copies of earlier representations and within two months from the date of receipt of such representation, respondents 2 and 3 shall pass appropriate orders thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.18.09.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ