HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1173 OF 2009 AND WRIT APPEAL No. 1304 OF 2009 Dated: 02-11-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1173 OF 2009 Between: The Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District ... APPELLANT AND Ch. Rama Sai Baba and 12 others ... RESPONDENTS WRIT APPEAL No. 1304 OF 2009 Between: The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District and another ... APPELLANTS AND Ch. Rama Sai Baba and 11 others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1173 OF 2009 AND WRIT APPEAL (SR) No. 92527 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGEMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) These two writ appeals arise out of order dated 18-06-2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Review W.P.M.P No. 17684 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 27688 of 1998. The short issue that has been raised in both these writ appeals is whether the finding of the learned single Judge that physical possession to the extent of Ac.1.35 cents out of Acs.8.82 cents, which was notified for acquisition was delivered to the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1173 of 2009 requires reconsideration. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition made strenuous efforts to convince us that the finding of the learned single Judge that the land owners were not dispossessed in respect of Ac.1.35 cents, requires to be examined in these two writ appeals. The learned Standing Counsel filed WAMP No. 2444 of 2009 to receive copy of order dated 11-06-1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 12243 of 1994. He has taken us through certain portions of the said order and argued that a categorical finding was recorded that possession of the entire land was taken albeit beyond the period stipulated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On the basis of these findings, the learned Standing Counsel contended that the order of the learned single Judge wherein a finding was given that Ac.1.35 cents was not taken possession, requires reconsideration. The learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader stated that a copy of the order in Writ Petition No. 12243 of 1994 was not filed before the learned single Judge. There is nothing on record which suggests that this order was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Therefore, in our considered view, this is an eminently fit case for filing a review petition, wherein the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1173 of 2009 can draw the attention of the learned single Judge to the findings rendered in Writ Petition No. 12243 of 1994. Hence, both the writ appeals are disposed of with liberty to the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1173 of 2009 to file a review petition before the learned single Judge. The right of the appellants in these appeals is preserved to avail further remedies after disposal of the review petition to be filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1173 of 2009. As a sequel to disposal of the appeals, WAMP Nos. 2444 and 2445 of 2009, filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1173 of 2009, are disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02-11-2009 ks