IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22618 of 2008 Between: M.Lakshma Reddy, S/o. Late M.Chandra Reddy, R/o. Flat No.504, Muralikrishna Enclave, yousufguda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, medak District, Sanga Reddy, Medak. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 3 The Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 4 Ambaji (died per LRs.) 5 Gandoji Kawle, S/o. Ambaji, Lrs. of Respondent No.4 R/o. H.No.13-3-1034, Ziaguda, Dhor Basthi, Puranapool, Hyderabad. 6 Balaraj, S/o. Ambaji, Lrs. of Respondent No.4 R/o. H.No.13-3-1034, Ziaguda, Dhor Basthi, Puranapool, Hyderabad. 7 Hiralal, S/o. Ambaji, Lrs. of Respondent No.4 R/o. H.No.13-3-1034, Ziaguda, Dhor Basthi, Puranapool, Hyderabad. 8 Smt. Saroja Bai, W/o.Sudheer Kharathmal, R/o. Plot No.17/28, Shanthinagar, Sholapur, Maharastra State. 9 V.Prasad Rao, S/o. Ankinedu, R/o. H.No.8-3-898/6, Yellareddyguda, hyderabad. 10 V.Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. V.Prasad Rao, R/o. H.No.8-3-898/6, Yellareddy Guda, Hyderabad. 11 Immani Chinna Trimurtulu, S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Flat No.104, Plot No.604,Prestige Towers, HIG, Phase-6, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabd. 12 R.K.Vishwanatha Raju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, R/o. H.No.6-3-70, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent authorities in not taking any action on the representations ﬁled by the Writ Petitioner on 04-04- 2007, 28-01-2008 and 25-09-2008 before the Respondent authorities as arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14, 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India, principles of natural justice, consequently direct the Respondent authorities to deposit the compensation amount determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by referring the matter under Section 30 of the said Act to the competent civil court for proper adjudication of the dispute pending between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.HARENDER PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement of sale with respondents 4 to 7 for purchase of an extent of Acs.17.15 guntas of land in survey No.400 of Kandi Village, Sanga Reddy Taluq, Medak District. Together with certain other extents, the land referred to above was notiﬁed for acquisition for establishment of Indian Institute of Technol ogy, v i d e notiﬁcation, dated 24.11.2007, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims to have submitted representations, opposing the acquisition and thereafter, during the course of award enquiry. His grievance is that his representations are not being taken into account. The petitioner also claims that he has ﬁled O.S.No.29 of 2000 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy for speciﬁc performance of an agreement of sale. He seeks a direction to the respondents to deposit compensation for the land referred to above, into a civil Court and for reference of the matter under Section 30 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Admittedly, the petitioner has not yet become the owner of the land, and to establish his rights, he has ﬁled O.S.No.29 of 2000. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer cannot be compelled to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act at the instance of the holder of an agreement of sale. The reason is that such person does not derive any title, as yet, to claim compensation. It is not as if the petitioner is without any remedy. He has already ﬁled a suit and he can seek appropriate directions in that suit, be it for attachment of the compensation or other ancillary reliefs, as are permissible in law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the suit, which is already ﬁled by him. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.10.2008. kdl