IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 6568 of 2007 Between: Mettupalli Anasuya, w/o late Mallareddy, r/o Gowrelly (V), Hayatnagar (M), Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad represented by its Secretary. 3 The District Collector, R.R.District, at Hyderabad. 4 The Spl.Dy.Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-II, Outer Ring Road Project, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. 5 The Project Director, Outer Ring Road & Special Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus i) declaring G.O.Ms.No.459, Revenue (L.A.) dated 08-04-2005 published in A.P.Gazette Part-I Extraordinary No.217, dated 12-04-2005 as illegal and void; ii) declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioner admeasuring ac.3.33 gts. in S.No.175 of Gowrelli Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art.14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently; iii) to quash the notification U/s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 12-12-2005 to the extent of ac.3.33 gts. in S.No.175 of Gowrelli Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; iv) to quash the declaration u/s.6 of the L.A.Act dated 14-08-2006 to the extent of ac.3.33 gts. in Sy.No.175 of Gowrelli Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; v) alternatively direct the respondents to allot the petitioner an extent of ac.3.33 gts., of land in S.No.178 or S.No.67 of Gowrelli Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R.District; and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6568 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.459 Revenue (LA) dated 8.4.2005 published in A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary No.217 dated 12.4.2005 as arbitrary and illegal and further declare the action of the respondents in acquiring petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.3-33 guntas in S.No.175 of Gowrelli village, Hayathnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to quash the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 12.12.2005 to the extent of petitioner’s land and also to quash declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14.8.2006. It appears, by way of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), an extent of Ac.3-33 guntas of land stands in the name of petitioner’s husband in S.No.175 of Gowrelli village was acquired for the purpose of formation of Outer Ring Road. Further, it seems that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and according to the petitioner, in the said enquiry, she filed objections and the same were rejected stating that it is not possible to alter the master plan and also to provide alternate land. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents states that in this regard, the Government has evolved a policy vide G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 18.12.2006 and apart from providing compensation, as per law, the claimants/affected persons were also provided with plot of maximum 1200 sq.yards. Be that as it may, insofar as issues raised in the present writ petition is concerned, they are all covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22809 of 2006 dated 1.10.1997 and therefore there is no necessity of going into further. It is suffice to notice that the objections of the petitioner were considered by the respondents and the same have been rejected on tenable grounds. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before respondents 4 and 5 requesting them to provide alternate land, apart from the package provided as per G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 18.12.2006, and it is for the authorities to consider and dispose of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 25.2.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6568 of 2007 25.2.2009