IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32134 of 2011 Between: Mir Qudrath Ali Khan & others. … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32134 of 2011 ORDER:- The petitioners claimed that on the basis of a grant made on 25.03.1961 in favour of the wife of petitioner No.1, their family has become the owner of 1000 square yards of property comprised in premises bearing municipal No.5-5-342 at Nampally, Hyderabad. Their grievance is that without acquiring the said land and paying compensation, the respondents are seeking to utilize the same for the purpose of Metro Rail project. I have heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Even though the petitioners have claimed that under a grant, the ownership of the property in question is vested in them, copy of the purported grant has not been filed. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have approached the respondents with a request for payment of compensation. Before approaching this Court for issuance of a Mandamus, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to represent to the respondents to meet their demand. Without first approaching the respondents, it is not appropriate for the petitioners to straight away invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (see Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury vs. State of West Bengal[1] and Amrit Lal Berry, K.N.Kapur vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi[2]). In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to respondent No.2 claiming compensation. If such representation is filed, respondent No.2 shall examine the same and take appropriate decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39915 of 2011 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.12.2011 ES [1] AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] AIR 1975 SC 538