IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9022 of 2003 Between: Lokireddy Rajagopal Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, R/o. Singanapalle Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat Bldgs, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Kurnool. 3 The Special Deputy Collector, (LA), Srisailam Right Branch Canal, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Office, Nandyal. 5 Gali Chinna Pulla Reddy, S/o. Gali Bali Reddy R/o. Singanapalle Village, Owk Mandal, Kurnool District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for respondent No.5: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to take possession of land admeasuring Ac.1.13 cents in Survey No.139/2 of Owk Village, Kurnool District, without payment of compensation, as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.93 cents in Survey No.139/2 of Owk Village, Kurnool District; that the said land being his ancestral property, a pattadar passbook with patta No.1287 was issued in his name; that when he came to know about acquisition of the said land for the purpose of SRBC canal, he made enquires which revealed that respondent No.5 received compensation for the entire extent of Acs.6.50 cents in Survey No.139/2 by misrepresenting that he was the lawful owner. The petitioner further stated that he made representation on 14-10-2002 to respondent No.2 requesting him to take action; that on the direction given by respondent No.3, the Deputy Inspector of Survey, SRBC (LA), Nandyal surveyed the land in Survey No.139/2 and submitted his report to respondent No.3 on 12-12-2002, wherein he stated that out of the total extent of Acs.6.50 cents in Survey No.139/2, respondent No.5 was in possession of Acs.5.37 cents and that the petitioner was in possession of Acs.1.13 cents. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the fraud played by respondent No.5 has come to the notice of respondents 1 to 4, no action has been taken by them. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, SRBC, Nandyal, Kurnool District, the above mentioned facts have been admitted. It is, however, stated that though wide publicity of acquisition was given, by following the procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the petitioner has not filed any objections at any stage of the acquisition proceedings and accordingly, possession was taken on 20-02-1998 and award was passed on 30-03-1998. As per the award, compensation amount of Rs.5,07,000/- was paid to respondent No.5. At the hearing, Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that at no point of time his client was given a notice enabling him to participate in the acquisition proceedings. Inasmuch as the award has already been passed and compensation was paid to respondent No.5, treating him as the owner of the entire land of Acs.6.50 cents, it is not necessary to probe into the claim as to whether the petitioner had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings or not. As the petitioner has not participated in the award proceedings, and payment has already been made to respondent No.5, the only option left to him is to establish his right over the land of Ac.1.13 cents in Survey No.139/2 of Owk Village, Kurnool District in a competent Civil Court and seek recovery of the compensation received by respondent No.5. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the observation made above. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.4196 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th August, 2008 vrn