IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5315 of 2007 Between: Pyda Satya Manikyamba, W/o Satyanarayana Murthy, R/o. Bhimavaram, W.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Eluru, W.G.Disstrict. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of issuing the Notiﬁcation bearing Roc.No.F5/SW/314/2006 dt. 30.06.2006 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as it relates to the land of the petitioner Ac.3.00 cents in S.No.292 of Anakoderu Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, W.G.District, as highly arbitrary, malaﬁde, dicriminatory, contrary to the provisions of Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purpose) Act, 2006 contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5315 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or order with the following substantial reliefs: “to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Notiﬁcation bearing Roc.No.F5/SW/314/2006 dated 30.06.2006 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as it relates to the land of the petitioner Ac.3.00 cents in S.No.292 of Anakoderu Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, as highly arbitrary, malaﬁde, discriminatory, contrary to the provisions of Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purpose) Act, 2006, contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case.” At the hearing, Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have acquired alternative land, in lieu of the land belonging to the petitioner. In view of this statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No.6769 of 2007 and WVMP.No.2632 of 2007 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 13.10.2008 v v