IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23597 of 2008 Between: Smt. Jayasheela (Hindu) W/o. Narsimha Reddy R/o. Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Ananthapur District. 2 The Tahsildar Chilamathur Mandal Ananthapur District. 3 The National Highway Authority of India Rep. by its Project Director, PIU, NHAI Ananthapur, Ananthapur 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 Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing off the claim / representation made by the petitioner for enhancement of compensation for the land to an extent of Ac.0.82 cents in survey No.567/ 1 of Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District acquired for widening the N.H.7 inspite of the report of the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.322/2007 /A2 dt.20-11-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and direct the 1st respondent to dispose off the said representation as early as possible. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23597 of 2008 ORDER Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri S.S.Varma, learned standing counsel for the third respondent, and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that on her land being acquired for widening of National Highway No.7, she was paid compensation which, according to her, was grossly inadequate. Petitioner is said to have submitted a representation to the District Collector, which the District Collector is statutorily required to dispose of. While the learned Government Pleader would rely on the instructions received from the second respondent-Tahsildar to contend that the petitioner had not submitted any representation, Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the District Collector, Ananthapur, in R.P.No.322/07/A2 dated 20-11- 2007, wherein a reference is made both to the petitioner having submitted a petition, and the letter addressed by the District Collector in turn, to the Tahsildar. It is evident, therefore, that the petitioner has indeed submitted a representation. Ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner’s representation, which is statutorily required to be considered under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is directed to be considered by the District Collector and he is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said order shall be passed, in accordance with law, after compliance with the procedural requirements under the Act and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:26-11-2008 usd