IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25202 of 2008 Between: Gunduboyina Raghuvulu, S/o. Bangaraiah, R/o. Chutti Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, Nellore. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore 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 issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the award bearing No. 77/2006-2007, dated January, 2007 passed by the 2nd respondent against the dead person except G. Veera Raghavulu as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Land Acquisition Act and also principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the said award. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The ﬁrst respondent issued notiﬁcation, dated 23.09.2006, proposing to acquire an extent of Acs.11.42 cents of land in diﬀerent survey numbers of Chutti Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore District, for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project. An award was passed on 27.01.2007. The petitioner claims to be a sharer for the acquired land of Acs.11.42 cents, to an extent of one- sixth. He submits that a notiﬁcation was issued by showing the names of dead persons and the matter was referred to civil Court by awarding very meagre compensation. He challenges the action of the second respondent in passing the award. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Even according to the petitioner, the second respondent referred the matter to a civil Court. Further, the petitioner does not claim exclusive right vis-à-vis the acquired property. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to one-sixth share, as claimed by him, and whether the compensation awarded to the land is adequate, needs to be considered in the pending reference. The award cannot be set aside, simply because the name of a dead person was shown in it. It is not as if the petitioner participated in the enquiry and brought to the notice of the second respondent about the death of any individual, mentioned in the proceedings. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the pending reference. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Dt.17.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ