THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.22082 of 2009 16th November, 2009 Between :- Veerla Peda Bapanna .. Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and 2 others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.22082 of 2009 ORDER:- This Court ordered notice before admission on 19-10- 2009. 2. Counter affidavit of 2nd respondent filed. 3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in issuing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) vide Roc.No.SW/299/07/G1, dt.17-6-2008 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide Roc.No.G1/299/09 (SW) dt.12-9-2009 and proceeding further without issuing any notice and without considering petitioner’s claim as tenant in respect of the property covered under the said notification as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider petitioner’s claim for apportionment of compensation being the tenant of the said property and pass such other suitable orders. 4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner made a representation to the A.P. State Human Rights Commission on 6-10-2008. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent had conducted an enquiry, submitted a report to the 2nd respondent informing that he conducted an enquiry and the enquiry reveals that the petitioner is the cultivating tenant in the land in question. It is also stated that on 10-12-2008 the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in Roc.No.G1/299/2007 (SW), informed the Secretary, the State Human Rights Commission, that a report is due from the Tahasildar, Pentapadu Mandal. 5. In the counter affidavit filed at para 8, it is stated that the respondents had alredy conducted enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 16-7-2008 after giving notices to the land owners. As already reported to the A.P.State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, the claim of the petitioners will be considered at the time of giving Award notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act and appropriate decision will be taken at the time of passing of the Award under the provisions of the Act. Although, the A.P.State Human Rights Commission closed file on receipt of report from the respondents, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition before this Court to delay the land acquisition proceedings. Further it is stated that the respondents issued notices to the land owners and conducted 5-A enquiry. The land owners had given their consent. After that, Draft Declaration was approved on 12-9-2009. The respondents are adhering to the provisions contemplated under the Act. The petitioner has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings since the land owners gave their consent. If the petitioner intends to object the acquisition proceedings, he ought to have filed petition in the designated Courts seeking remedy for tenancy rights. In spite of doing so, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition only to delay the land acquisition proceedings. The claim of the petitioner if any will be considered at the time of passing Award in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the same was already informed to the petitioner before the A.P.State Human Rights Commission. 6. In the light of the specific stand taken that the claim of the petitioner will be considered at the time of giving Award notices under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act and appropriate decision will be taken at the time of passing of the Award under the provisions of the Act, the same is recorded and accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 16th November, 2009 smr