THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15024 OF 2007 DATED: 28-01-2008 BETWEEN K. Nagaraju Rao, S/o. Padmanabha Rao, R/o. D.No.4/132, Panchangam Street, Penukonda, Ananthapur District. …PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …RESPONDENTS ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.1 of 2006 dated 29.06.2006 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to fix the compensation for the tank, tankbed, fruit bearing trees for an extent of 201 acres, which were surrendered, in Sy.No.60/2, R. Locherla Village, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur District. 2. Petitioner submits that the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer by order in C.C.No.558/559/75 H dated 30.11.2005 exempted the tank in Sy.No.60-2 of an extent of 201 acres of R. Locherla Village, Roddam Mandal, in the total holding of the declarant. It is stated that the father of the petitioner viz. Padmanabha Rao was the declarant. As the said land, being a tankbed land, was deleted from the holding of the declarant, the Authorized Officer, Land Reforms filed an appeal in L.R.A.No.1 of 2006 before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the appellate authority by judgment dated 29.06.2006 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal dated 30.11.2005 and remanded the matter to the Primary Tribunal to dispose the matter as per the directions given in L.R.A.No.2 of 1999 dated 17.09.2004 by fixing up the compensation for tank bed after considering all the evidence produced by the Government. 3. Pursuant to the said remand order the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda passed order in C.C.No.558/559/75H dated 09.05.2007 rejecting the request of the petitioner, as per the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, for payment of compensation in respect of the tank bed land on various grounds. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.T.No.1 of 2007 as well as this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner withdrew the appeal in L.R.A.No.1 of 2007 on a misconception that the Government Pleader has taken an objection about his action in pursuing parallel proceedings i.e. L.R.A.T.No.1 of 2007 and the present writ petition. In fact, the petitioner never questioned the order in C.C.No.558/559/75 H dated 09.05.2007 but only questioned the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.1 of 2006. 4. I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot get any relief in this writ petition without questioning the order dated 09.05.2007 passed in C.C.No.558/559/75 H, as L.R.A.No.1 of 2007 was mistakenly dismissed as not pressed at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, it is just and proper to permit the petitioner file a petition before the appellate tribunal to set aside the order dated 12.11.2007 in L.R.A.No.1 of 2007 and to take up the L.R.A. for hearing. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a petition before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal to set aside the order dated 12.11.2007 in L.R.A.No.1 of 2007 and on filing such petition, the order dated 12.11.2007 may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the appeal in L.R.A.No.1 of 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J January 28, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days. (B/o) DSK