IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22046 of 2002 Between: P.S.K.Chaitanya and four others. … Petitioners And The State of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 27 others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri R.Mahender Reddy. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition for R.1 to R.4,R.7 and R.8. Sri K.V.Simhadri for R.6. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 10 in acquiring the house plots of the petitioners for the purpose of Cyber Park, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri R. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 1 to 4, 7 and 8; Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6; and perused the record. Challenge to the above mentioned acquisition proceedings is mounted by the petitioners on the sole ground that the respondents were not justiﬁed in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically represented that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Munshi Singh Vs. Union of India[1], and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai[2] , the action of the respondents in dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be sustained. The learned counsel submitted that the purpose of acquisition, viz., establishment of a Cyber Park, is not so urgent as warranting invocation of the urgency provision contained under Section 17(4) of the Act. In the separate counter-aﬃdavits ﬁled by respondents 1 to 4; respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 it has been pleaded that Award was passed on 31-12-2001 and possession of the land in dispute was taken on 2-7-2002. A perusal of the proceedings sheet shows that this Court on 7-11-2002 granted interim order of status quo for a period of two weeks and subsequently the same has not been extended further. In view of the material events that have taken place after the ﬁling of the Writ Petition culminating in passing of the Award, which remained unchallenged, and taking possession, I am of the view that the issue, whether an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners or not, may not survive for consideration at this belated stage. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the facts of this case in order to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. This order, however, does not preclude the petitioners from asserting their rights and availing appropriate remedies for compensation in accordance with law. --------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:07-08-2008 MNR [1]) (1973) 2 SCC 337 [2] ) (2005) 7 SCC 627= AIR 2005 S 3520.