IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 1184 of 2009 Between: 1 Rayala Adiseshaiah S/o. Sri Subbaiah R/o. Talakondapadu Village, Peddacharlapalli Mandal Prakasam District. 2 Rayala Subbaiah S/o. Late Sri Nagaiah R/o. Talakondapadu Village, Peddacharlapalli Mandal Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector Prakasam District at Ongole 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Kandukuru Division, Prakasam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Peddacharlapalli Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Kuppanagiri Venkata Subbaiah S/o. Sri Nagaiah @ Pedda Nagakiah R/o. Paletipalli Village, Peddacharlapalli Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Madnamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the Respondents 1 to 3 to recognize the petitioners as affected parties in relation to resumption of lands of the petitioners to the extent of Ac 5-00 cents & Ac 4-50 cents respectively in Sy.No.s 83/1 & 83/2 (83/4) of Talakondapadu Village, Peddacharlapalli Mandal, Prakasam District and pay the compensation to the petitioners and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: The writ petition is premature and is misconceived. The petitioners asserting assignment of land in their favour, of an extent of Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No. 83/2 (in favour of the 1st petitioner) and Ac.4- 50 cents in Sy.No. 83/1 and 2 (in favour of the 2nd petitioner) laid a claim before the 3rd respondent for compensation on account of submergence of these lands in the Paletipalli Reservoir. The petitioners’ representation to respondent No.2 was acknowledged by the said respondent on 29-10-2008. It would appear that the petitioners apprehend a similar claim for compensation by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent challenged the assignment in favour of the petitioners. This was rejected by the 2nd respondent, who dismissed two appeals on 10-5-1995. The further appeals preferred by the aggrieved persons are also stated to have been dismissed on 14-6-1995. As on date no order has been passed by the 2nd respondent determining the entitlement of either the petitioners or the 4th respondent. Even the affidavit does not plead so. A vague assertion is made in para 8 of the writ petition that on 29-12-2008 when the petitioners went to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent informed them that they would not be getting any compensation, because they were not entitled to the same. It is further stated that the petitioners have learnt that the 2nd respondent has recognized the 4th respondent as lawfully entitled to the compensation. The writ petition is speculative and pre-emptive. Till an order is passed by the 2nd respondent determining the entitlement of either the petitioners or the 4th respondent, no cause of action accrues. The writ petition is dismissed. As and when an order is passed adverse to the petitioners’ interest, the petitioners may approach the appropriate forum. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 1st May, 2009. GRR