IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22074 of 2000 Between: T.Devanarayana Reddy, S/o. Late Adisesha Reddy, R/o. d.No. 19-9-4 , Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devansthanams, Administrative Buildings, K.T.Road, Tirupathi , Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: G.P. FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not referring the claim of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for determination of the market value of his land. Heard Sri P.Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that after the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner’s claim was referred under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, and the reference was numbered as O.P. No.5 of 1991. She further submitted that the reference Court dismissed the said O.P, on merits, on 28-02-2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has stated that he has no instructions with respect to these facts. As the learned Assistant Government Pleader made the above mentioned submission on the basis of the written instructions, I have no reason not to accept the same. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition in the event the facts reported to the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are not correct. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 8th July, 2008 vrn