THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.NO.1812 OF 2008 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both the counsel. 2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. 3. It appears that the writ petitioner’s land has been taken over by the 4th respondent - The Vice Chairman, Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, for development. The claim of the writ petitioner is that she being the legal heir of the original assignee, is the owner of the land and hence the Government cannot acquire the land without following the due process of law. 4. The settled law is that even though the land is assigned, the Government, which assigned the land, remains to be the true owner and the same can always be acquired for any public cause. 5. It is also not in dispute that the relief sought for by the writ petitioner is that she is entitled for compensation. In view of the said relief, no interim order need be passed. Until the writ petition is heard and disposed of finally, the question of payment of compensation, cannot be decided. 6. The learned single Judge dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that in the event of writ petitioner’s success, question of compensation can be decided. 7. We do not find any illegality or irregularity whatsoever in the impugned interlocutory order and further no prejudice is caused or likely to be caused to the writ petitioner. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ------------------------------------- D.S.R.VARMA,J ------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:30.12.2008 AVS