THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27920 of 2008 Date:26.04.2011 Between: Chilukuri Krishna Prasad ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Eluru, and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Acs.15.97 cents in survey Nos.34, 21/3 and 32/3 of Kunchanapalli Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that lands to an extent of Acs.5.69 cents in R.S.Nos.149 and 32/3 of M.Upparagudem, H/o Kunchenapalli Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal were identified for acquisition under social welfare scheme; that draft notification proposals under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) were submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru, on 23.06.2008 and that the said notification is not approved and published so far. The counter-affidavit has denied the petitioner’s allegation that the respondents have been demanding the petitioner to handover the possession of his land and stated that if and when the land acquisition proceedings are initiated, the petitioner will be given an opportunity to raise his objections in the enquiry to be held under Section 5-A of the Act. After hearing Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is premature. As the proceedings under the Act have not been so far set in motion with publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s possession of his property. Having regard to the denial of the petitioner’s allegation of such interference by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, no further adjudication in the writ petition is necessary. Therefore, while disposing of the Writ Petition, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law in the event of initiation of land acquisition proceedings by the respondents. As a sequel to disposing of the writ petition, interim order dated 23.12.2008 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.36596 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th April, 2011 GHN