IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 11882 of 2009 Between: 1 Mr. Ajay Mohan S/o. Mrs. Tara Sarup R/o. 9, Somerset House, Opp. Colaba P.O., Mumbai - 400 005. 2 Mrs. Tara Sarup D/o. Dr. Amarnath Puri R/o. Powai House, Bungalow, Powai Park Drive Off Saki Vihar Road, Mumbai. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Principal Secretary Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector, Medak District. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....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 issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction one more particularly in the nature of Writ of "Mandamus" directing the respondents to forthwith re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the petitioners land in Sy. Nos. 426, 427, 428, 434 & 437 situated Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District and pay to the petitioners the same amount as was paid to the other land owners unde the consent award passed in relation to the acquisition of lands for IIT, Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that they are the absolute owners of an extent of Ac.20.02 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.426, 427, 428, 434 and 437 situated in Kandi village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. While so, the 4th respondent-Government issued a Memo No.15335/EC.2/2007, dated 30.07.2007 proposing to acquire private patta lands to an extent of Ac.84.33 guntas including the land belonging to the petitioners for the purpose of establishing Indian Institute of Technology. In pursuance of the Memo, the 1st respondent-Land Acquisition Officer issued a Draft Notification dated 24.11.2007 proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land. It is further stated that the 4th respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, passed an Award dated 09.03.2009 awarding compensation of Rs.3,14,000/- per acre in respect of all the lands that were acquired. According to the petitioners, prior to passing this Award, the 4th respondent paid an amount of Rs.8,57,220/- per acre to other claimants towards compensation for acquisition of their lands, and the petitioners made a representation dated 24.03.2009 to the 1st respondent seeking payment of compensation of Rs.8,57,220/- per acre on par with other claimants. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that though similarly situated persons were paid suitable compensation for acquisition of their lands, the 1st respondent has not considered his application nor paid suitable compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the 4th respondent. The factual aspects of the matter are not in dispute. The only contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the payment of Rs.8,57,220/- per acre towards compensation for acquisition of their land which was paid to similarly situated persons. Inasmuch as the 1st respondent passed the impugned award, awarding less compensation than the amount claimed by the petitioner and that too, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, and since the representation dated 24.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioners seeking payment of equal compensation, is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, is directed to consider the representation dated 24.03.2009 said to have been made by the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 18th June, 2009 bcj