IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14037 of 2008 Between: Chinta Eswara Reddy S/o.Lakshmi Reddy R/o.Near State Bank, Kondapuram Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi (GNSS) III, Muddanur, Kadapa District. 2.Chinta Subbamma W/o. Lakshmi Reddy R/o.D.No.3/18, Old Kondapuram Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. 3.Chinta Pratap Reddy S/o. Lakshmi Reddy R/o.D.No.3/56, Old Kondapuram Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa 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 action of the 1st respondent in not disposing off the petitioner's representation dated 13.6.2008 as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against statutory provisions being violative of Land Acquisition Act and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose off the petitioner's representation dated 13.6.2008 by referring the matter to the Civil Court as per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of the Houses bearing H.No.3/18, 3/56 of R.S.Kondapuram in Kondapuram Mandal of Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.14037 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the first respondent in not considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 13.06.2008, in which he claimed 1/3rd share in the compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under notification, dated 07.06.2008, for the purpose of GNSS Project is arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that as on today, no award has been made. However, the petitioner alleges that since urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act has been invoked, the first respondent is likely to disburse 80% of the compensation to respondents 2 and 3 ignoring his claim. Having regard to the specific allegations made by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion as to the entitlement of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.06.2008, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving notice to respondents 2 and 3 herein. However, it is made clear that till a decision is taken by the first respondent, no payment shall be made to respondents 2 and 3, if not already made. No costs. _______________ 02.07.2008 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB