HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27798 of 2010 Date: 13.12.2011 Between: G.Janardhana Naidu ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by its District Collector, Chittoor District and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: AGP for Irrigation & GAD The Court made the following: ORDER: Certain lands of the petitioner mentioned in the Writ Petition were acquired for the purpose of excavation of canals under Hundri Neeva Srujala Sravanthi Scheme. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was dispensed with. Therefore, left with no opportunity to participate in the enquiry, the petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, with a plea to avoid removal of tombs and the bore-well while excavating the canal. In response to the petitioner’s representation, the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed letter, dated 10.10.2008, to the Superintendent Engineer- respondent No.3, while forwarding the petitioner’s objection, for taking necessary action. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition with the grievance that his representation is not favourably considered. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2 it is inter a l i a stated that Award No.9/2010-11 was passed on 05.10.2010 and that, even though notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was received by the petitioner on 07.11.2010, he has not appeared to receive the compensation. It is further stated that the apprehension of the petitioner that the tombs situated in his acquired land will be removed has no basis as the Executive Engineer has informed that the tombs will be protected at the time of excavation of the canal and that, during the inspection, it was found that the tombs were not coming in the alignment of the canal. In the light of the above-mentioned stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the grievance of the petitioner with respect to the tombs stands redressed. As far as the bore-well is concerned, there is no specific mention in the counter- affidavit with respect thereto. However, if the bore-well is also acquired, the petitioner is entitled to claim suitable compensation if the same has not been granted in the award by seeking reference to the civil Court if his request is within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 10.11.2010 is vacated, and W.P.M.P.No.35462 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.185 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th December 2011 DR