THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 199 OF 2011 DATED:21-12-2011 Between: Govindu and nine others … Appellants And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, I&CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 199 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 12-04-2010 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8085 of 2010. 2. The appellants had filed a writ petition seeking two reliefs. The first was for a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of their lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The second relief was for payment of compensation for the lands of the appellants that were submerged under the Lift Irrigation Scheme on Nallavagu to feed Yerramdoddi Tank to the extent of Acs.21.30 guntas situated in Survey Nos.96, 97, 100 to 104 of Guvvaldinni Village, Gattu Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 3. The appellants had earlier filed a writ petition which was disposed of in their favour and against that, the State had preferred WA No. 1580 of 2002. 4. In WA No. 1580 of 2002 decided on 06-07-2009, the Division Bench noted that the direction given by the learned single Judge to complete the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellants’ lands cannot be sustained. It was also made clear that insofar as compensation is concerned, due to alleged submergence of lands, the appellants may take appropriate remedies as may be available in accordance with law. 5. Notwithstanding the orders passed in WA No. 1580 of 2002, the appellants preferred another writ petition out of which the present appeal has arisen. 6. We find that the prayer made in the second writ petition is more or less similar to the prayer made in the earlier writ petition. 7. In the present writ petition, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants were not dispossessed from their lands by the State and that submergence, if any, was caused due to natural calamities such as heavy rainfall or floods. 8. As regards the compensation, the learned single Judge gave liberty to the appellants to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief. 9. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the submissions made on earlier occasions before the Division Bench as well as before the learned single Judge. 10. It is quite clear that we cannot issue any direction to the respondents to compulsorily acquire the lands of the appellants under the Act. It is also quite clear that if there has been some damage caused to the lands of the appellants, the course of action for them is to file a civil suit for compensation. 11. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition while giving liberty to the appellants to approach the civil Court. 12. There is no merit in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21-12-2011 ks