IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.411 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16-07-2007 in W.P.No.24776 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.S. Sriramacharyulu, S/o. Appalacharyulu R/o. Mandhavadhara,Visakhapatnam-7, Presently Residing at FlatNo.104, V.V.R. Towers, Road No.2, Haripuri colony Hyderabad-35. ... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector (LA), Visakhapatnam District Visakhapatnam 2 The Special Tahasildar (LA) Revenue Division Visakhapatnam 3 The official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad 4 V. Surya Subrahmanyam S/o.Venkatachainulu R/o. Ramalayam Street, Anakaplle, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for Respondents: GP, LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per HC, J) Judgment delivered in W.P.No.24776 of 1996 dated 16-11-2007 has been challenged in this appeal. The land which was the subject matter of the petition has been acquired for A.P. Refractories Limited. Award No.11/81 was made on 25-07-1981. Possession of the land had been handed over to the company for which the land had been acquired and the said company has been ordered to be wound up. At this juncture, the appellant/original petitioner ﬁled the aforesaid petition with a prayer that the land should be returned to him by de-notifying the same. The learned single Judge, after hearing the learned Advocates, rejected the petition and being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. In our opinion, after hearing the Advocates and on perusal of the impugned order, the order passed by the learned single Judge is just and proper for the reason that the appellant/original petitioner could not have challenged the award made in July, 1981 by ﬁling a petition in 1996. Possession of the land in question had already been taken and given to the company for which the land had been acquired. It is an admitted fact that compensation has been paid to the present appellant. In the afore-stated circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned single Judge is unjust or improper. The appeal is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 21, 2008 MRR