IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8536 of 2011 Between: Suru Koteswar Reddy … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary Revenue (LA) Dept, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Sk. Rizwan Ali for Sri N. Ravi Prasad Counsel for respondents 1-4: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivela This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8536 of 2011 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in passing the award in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 without considering the objections raised by the petitioner for payment of compensation in respect of Ac.0.62 cents of land in Sy.No.99/1 of Boddecherla Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary. Even though, originally, the relief was claimed against respondent Nos.5 to 7, the Writ Petition was dismissed against respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the memo filed by the petitioner in view of the out of Court settlement between them. The petitioner claims that he has a right over the land admeasuring Ac.0.62 cents while respondent No.5 pleaded that he is the rightful owner of the structures bearing Nos.170 and 175 in Sy.Nos.99/1 and 99/2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that Boddecherla Village is one of the villages, which got submerged in Somasila Project, that the agricultural lands situated in the said village were acquired through award Nos.1 to 6 of 1999, dated 22.02.1999, and that structures existing in Sy.Nos.99/1, 99/2, 100/1, 96/1A, 100/2, 98/1B and 14/1 were subsequently notified for acquisition and separate acquisition proceedings were initiated vide notification, dated 12.12.2005, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). It is further stated that as per the directions given by the District Empowered Committee, the structures of Boddecherla Village were re-notified under Section 4(1) of the Act on 22.11.2009 and fresh 5A enquiry was held. That in the objections filed in pursuance of the previous notification on 10.10.2007, the petitioner has claimed structures bearing Nos.170 and 175, that in pursuance of the later notification, the petitioner did not file any claim or objections even though an opportunity was given in this regard in the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, that the petitioner attended the award enquiry in respect of structure bearing No.172, which belongs to him and notified in his name, that he has also submitted a statement to that effect in the award enquiry claiming structure No.172 only, and that structure Nos.170 and 175 belong to respondent No.5 while structure Nos.171 and 173 belong to respondent Ns.6 and 7 respectively. Respondent No.5 also filed a counter affidavit, wherein similar pleas have been raised. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is evident that the petitioner has not made any reference to the structures. The averments in the counter affidavit show that while the land was notified earlier and award was passed, only structures were notified initially in the year 2005 and later in the year 2009. Even though the petitioner has filed his objections in pursuance of the previous notification regarding structure Nos.170 and 175, he failed to file any such objections in pursuance of later notification. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has made a claim in respect of structure Nos.170 and 175. Respondent No.3 filed a copy of statement of the petitioner given during the award enquiry, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of structure No.172 and accordingly he limited his claim to the said structure. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to compensation in respect of Ac.0.62 cents of land in Sy.No.99/1 of Boddecherla Village is wholly misconceived. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.10610 of 2011 and WVMP.No.2643 of 2011 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.11.2011 ES