IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12407 of 2004 Between: Dinesh Kanparia C/o. sri Sant Asaramji Ashram Sabarmati Ahmedabad through its GPA Holder Manoj Kumar Soni, S/o. Sri Premanarayan Soni, Aged about 31 years, R/o.Sant Asaramji Ashram Trust Tondapally Village, Shamshabad Mandal R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Collector, R.R. District Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Land Acquisition International Air port, Shamshabad, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the in action of the respondent No.1 for not disposing and referring the matter of the petitioner to the Civil Court in spite of giving of an application on 22.6.2004 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in pursuance of the notice of the award under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 issued by the respondent No.2 on 25.5.2004 in respect of the land in Sy.No.103 to the extent of 35 guntas, Gollapallykalan Village, Shamshabad Mandal R.R. District and as totally illegal, arbitrary against the principle of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court in a hasty manner complaining the inaction on the part of the first respondent in referring the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). Even as per the averments made in the affidavit, it is evident that the application for reference was said to have been made on 22- 06-2004 and the present writ petition was filed on 14-07-2004 complaining that the first respondent failed in discharging his obligation to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner, without waiting for a decision by the first respondent, approached this Court. This is nothing but pressure tactics adopted by the petitioner. Hence, I do not see any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. However, it is needless to observe that the respondents are under obligation to intimate the action taken by them to the petitioner on the said representation dated 22-06-2004. ______________ 19-07-2004 ghn/tsnr To 1 The Collector, R.R. District Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 2 Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Land Acquisition International Air port, Shamshabad, R.R. District. 3. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P.,(O.U.T.) 4. Two CD copies