THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7111 of 2006 Dated:24.02.2011 Between: M.Konda Reddy, And others. ...Petitioners And The Special Deputy Collector-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Somasila Project, Unit-II, Kadapa, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7111 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners are from Boddecherla Village of Gopavaram Mandal in Kadapa District. Their properties (houses and other structures) were acquired for Somasila Project. They state that in the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the details of the buildings were shown as per the report submitted by the Department of Irrigation (requisitioning department). But, the Land Acquisition Officer – first respondent herein, ignored the same and allegedly proceeded for determining the value of the structures. The petitioners raised objections on 05.12.2005 and 19.12.2005. They also requested the authorities to notify the correct dimensions of the structures as per the statement prepared by the requisitioning department, in vain. Therefore, they filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to notify the correct extent and nature of the buildings of the petitioners which got submerged in Somasila Project. The first respondent filed counter affidavit. The proposal by the Department of Irrigation and the acquisition of the properties of the petitioners including structures as existing on 18.07.2003 is not denied. It is further stated that even before the enquiry could be completed by the first respondent as per the videograph taken before the launch of the Project, the present writ petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) made their submissions. The Counsel for the petitioners insists that before the land/structures of the petitioners were proposed for acquisition, the requisitioning department prepared the detailed statements, and the same should be considered by the first respondent before passing the award. It is, however, objected to by the Government Pleader. He would contend that the statement annexed to the writ petition and relied on by the petitioners allegedly prepared by the requisitioning department cannot be given any credence, as the same does not contain any signature. According to him, the videograph taken by the department projects the correct picture. In view of the rival stand one thing is very clear. As a Court of judicial review, the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided. It would be in the interests of justice if the first respondent considers all the objections that may be raised by the petitioners. Needless to mention that it would be open to the petitioners to produce the statements allegedly prepared by the requisitioning department with regard to the nature and extent of the structures. The first respondent shall consider the same, and pass appropriate orders if the award is not already passed. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.02.2011 vs