IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 26542 of 2005 Between: P.Annapurna ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Seeking a Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in having permitted similarly situated persons to have their sugarcane and other standing crops, and not allowing the petitioner to have the harvest of sugarcane crop in Survey No.381/3, admeasuring Ac.4.94 cents, situated at Pragadapalli village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, as promised by them, at the time of acquisition of land, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner submits that she was the owner in respect of the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.4.94 cents situated in Sy.No.381/3 situated at Pragadapalli village, Polavaram Mandal of West Godavari District, and her lands have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for excavation of right main canal (Unit-I, Kovvur). It is stated that the compensation in respect of the said lands was also paid after passing award. It is further stated that as there was standing crop of sugarcane at the time of acquisition of land, the 2nd respondent gave oral assurance that the standing crop will be permitted to cut. But contrary to oral assurance, the standing crop is not permitted to cut. It is further stated that a representation dated 24.11.2005 has been filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent stating that certain similarly situated persons are allowed to cut the standing crop, but the same benefit has not been given to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that compensation in respect of the lands, amounting to Rs.5,68,100/-, compensation for the bore well, amounting to Rs.8,257/-, and compensation for the sugarcane crop, as assessed by the Agricultural Officer, Polavaram, amounting to Rs.49,400/-, total compensation of Rs.6,25,757/- was paid by way of cheque dated 13.10.2005 to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled even to cut the standing sugarcane crop on the acquisition land as compensation was already paid and the title vests in the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is permitted to cut the sugarcane, she will refund the crop compensation of Rs.49,400/-. I am not inclined to express any opinion as to whether the petitioner has got right to cut the sugarcane crop as the entire compensation was already paid. But, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if some other similarly situated persons have permitted to cut the sugarcane instead of paying compensation for the sugarcane crop, and if the immediate work is not required to take place in the lands in question, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2005. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2005, if any received and filed. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 13.12.2005 Dsr Note: Issue CC in three days B/o Dsr