IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11254 of 2008 Between: Smt. Tatina Vijayabarathi W/o. Kasi Visweswara Rao R/o. Prakasaraopalem, Nallagerla Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Collector (Land Acquistion), Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar Project, Unit No.2, Eluru, East Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, East Godavari District. 4 Sri Vellanki Venkata Subrahmanyam S/o. Late Gopalakrishna, R/o. Nallajerla Village, Nallarjerla Mandal, West Godavari 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 will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 herein without deciding the written representation dt. 24.01.2008 and not referring the matter to the Civil Court reference Under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act and without considering the pendency of the civil suit making proposal of releasing the compensation amount by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent relating to the disputed properties situated in Nillajerla Village and Mandal, Ananthapalli Sub-Registry, West Godavari district in an extent of Ac.2.05 cents in R.S.no.449/2, Ac.0.57 cents in R.S.no.449/3, Ac.474 cents in R.S.no.451/3, Ac.2.18 cents in R.S.No.447/1, Ac.2.65 cents in R.S.No.247/7 and Ac.0.99 cents in R.S.No.451/2 pursuant to the notification dt. 05.11.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14, 21 and 300-A and provisions of Land Acquisition Act and contrary to the orders passed in W.P.No.2718 of 2008 dt. 10.03.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRT.N.MRANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11254 of 2008 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.2718 of 2008 alleging that her representation dated 24-01-2008 seeking reference to civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was not considered and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10-03-2008 directing as under: “Hence, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent-Special Collector (Land Acquisition) is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24-01-2008 and decide as to whether there is a genuine dispute between the petitioner and her brother, the 4th respondent with regard to the apportionment of compensation, and if ultimately, the Collector is satisfied, he may refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the compensation.” Petitioner states that pursuant to the said order, notices were issued to the petitioner and in response to the same she submitted the relevant documents before the 2nd respondent. However, it is alleged that though O.S.No.93 of 2007 filed by her in the court of the II Additional District Judge, Eluru seeking a decree for partition against the 4th respondent is pending, the 2nd respondent is proceeding to release the compensation in favour of the 4th respondent without taking into consideration the claim made by her in the suit as well as the representation dated 24-01-2008. Learned Government Pleader under instructions stated that so far no award has been passed and the 2nd respondent would take the necessary steps strictly in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.2718 of 2008. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent also submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is totally without any basis. Having regard to the above submissions and particularly since no award has been passed by the 2nd respondent so far the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the 2nd respondent to take necessary steps in terms of the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.2718 of 2008 dated 10-03-2008. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 26-06-2008 KLP