IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12842 of 2009 Between: Challamalla Vijayabhaskar Choudary S/o.Ramachandrudu R/o.Seethanagaram, Rampachodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Collector, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Left main Canal 1, Rajahmundry, E.G. 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent Land Acquisition Officer, not to disburse any compensation to any body, pursuant to the orders of the 1st respondent in Ref.C/630/2008 dated 09.06.2009, in respect of the acquired lands of Ac.4.06 cents in Sy.No.52/2 of Nelakota village of Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District and it is further consequentially prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to disburse compensation only after the necessary decision is taken by the appellate authority in the appeal, being preferred against the said order of the 1st respondent, as to who exactly is the owner of the said lands. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : .O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that his grandfather was the absolute owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.04.06 cents of land in Sy. No.52/2, situated in Nelakota village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, and after his death, the property devolved on the petitioner, and pattedar passbooks were also issued in his favour. According to the petitioner, one V. Mutyala Reddy, by illegal means, obtained pattedar passbooks and D-Form pattas in his name in respect of the land in question. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, acquired the property in question, for Indira Sagar Project. While so, the 1st respondent-Sub- Collector, issued orders dated 09.06.2009, canceling the passbook and title deeds granted in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that the then Settlement Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, issued pattedar passbooks and title deeds to the petitioner, based on fabricated settlement order. According to the petitioner, he is going to file a statutory appeal against the order of cancellation of the pattedar passbooks and title deeds. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is taking steps to disburse the compensation to the legal heirs of V.Muthyala Reddy. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking directions to the 2nd respondent not to disburse the compensation to anybody. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the orders of the 1st respondent, canceling the pattedar passbooks and title deeds, the petitioner is going to prefer a statutory appeal, and if in the meantime, the respondents disburse the compensation in respect of the land in question to the legal heirs of V.Mutyala Reddy, it will adversely affect his title over the subject matter of the property, and therefore, prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. The contention of the petitioner that since he is going to prefer a statutory appeal against the order passed by the 1st respondent, canceling the pattedar passbooks and title deeds of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent be directed not to disburse the compensation in favour of the legal heirs of V.Muthyala Reddy, cannot be granted. The petitioner even before preferring appeal, cannot seek directions to the appellate authority to stop the 2nd respondent from paying compensation to the beneficiaries in terms of the award. Merely because the petitioner has statutory right of appeal against the impugned order, that by itself cannot be a reason/ground for this Court to stay the disbursement of the compensation payable to the beneficiaries in terms of an award. Hence, this Court, based on unjustifiable contention, cannot direct the 2nd respondent to stop payment of compensation to the beneficiaries. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 20th July, 2009 bcj