HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5531 of 2006 17.01.2008 Between: Smt. K. Venkayamma … Petitioner AND The District Collector, West Godavari District & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not implementing proceedings dated 27.10.2004 issued by respondent No.1 for implementation of award No. 1 of 1985 as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, no one has appeared for the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The only grievance of the petitioner, as reflected from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that though award dated 31.07.1985 was passed in respect of the agricultural lands belonging to her and acquired by the respondents, full payment to satisfy the award was not made. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Yerrakalava Reservoir Project, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District, it is averred as under: “ In reply to the averments made in paras 3 to 8 of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that as per the orders of the District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru, issued in Proceedings No. Roc.G3/4860/2K4 dated 27.10.2004, an amount of Rs. 60,558/- was paid to the land owners on 31.03.2006, out of which an amount of Rs. 6,026/- was paid to the petitioner herein. However, at this stage it was noted that the interest was paid up to the date of passing of award i.e. 31.7.1985 only and not till the date of payment and not till the date of Award. As such the balance interest due is paid to the petitioner on 13.06.2007. However, I tender my unconditional apologies to the petitioner for causing delay in payment of compensation to the petitioner in the writ petition.” No reply affidavit has been filed controverting the above reproduced averments. In view of the same, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17.01.2008 ksld