HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 29260 OF 2011 Dated 2nd November, 2011 Between: O. Masthan ………Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer, Guduru, SPS Nellore District and two others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Karuna Sagar for Sri A. Venkateswarlu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter No. Rc.A2620/06, dated 14-09-2009 of respondent No.1 addressed to respondent No.3. The petitioner pleaded that he has succeeded to his paternal uncle late O. Venkataramanaiah who left behind an extent of Acs.4.99 cents of assigned land in Survey No. 382/2 of Palachuru Village, Gudur Mandal, SPS Nellore District. The said land was acquired for the requirement of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has approached respondent No.2 with a representation to pay compensation in respect of the said land on which respondent No.2 has held an enquiry by holding gramasabha and concluded that he is entitled for compensation. On receipt of report from respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has issued cheque bearing No. 607827 for a sum of Rs.9,62,217/- in favour of the petitioner and the same was deposited in respondent No.3 – Bank on 10-09-2009. When respondent No.3 has not permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said amount, he approached the office of respondent No.1 and came to know that by the impugned letter, respondent No.1 has requested respondent No.3 not to honour the cheque issued in his favour. I have heard Sri Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. A perusal of the impugned letter of respondent No.1 shows that he has requested respondent No.3 not to honour the cheque in favour of the petitioner until further orders. Evidently, respondent No.1 has not made further enquiries and taken a final decision which has driven the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The impugned letter does not contain any reasons for respondent No.1 to prevent the petitioner from withdrawing the amount already deposited through the cheque issued by the former. Even if for any reason, respondent No.1 felt that an enquiry is needed before permitting the petitioner to withdraw the amount, he ought to have held and completed the enquiry and taken appropriate decision without loss of time. As he failed to do so, respondent No.1 is directed to hold an enquiry into entitlement of the petitioner for receiving of the compensation amount by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 36226 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 2nd November, 2011 ks