IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16675 of 2007 Between: 1 V.Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o.V.Swamy Reddy R/o.Rayakunta village, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District 2 V.Madan Mohan Reddy S/o.Swami Reddy S/o, lare Narsa Reddy, R/o.Rayakunta village, Shamshabd Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lakdikapool, Hyderabad 2 The land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Division (II), Outer Ring Road, HUDA complex, Tarnaka Hyderabad 3 The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman Paigah palace, Rasoolpura Begumpet, Hyderabad 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Maheswaram Mandal 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioners in Sy.No.835 admeasuring Ac.4.00 gts situated at Mankal village, H/o., Golkonda Kalan, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of development of township and future projects pursuant to notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act in Ref.No.G2/2399/2004 dated 7.7.2004 published in A.P.Gazettee R.R.No.57 dated 14.7.2004 and declaration under Sec.6 of the Land Acquisition Act published in AP Gazettee in R.R.No.132 dated 28.7.2005 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents herein to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the above said lands Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: MR.RAVINDRA YANAMANDRA The Court made the following : ORDER: Learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy and others v. Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another[1]. Therefore, this writ petition is also liable to be allowed in terms of the said judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notifications are quashed to the extent of the lands belonging to the petitioners. The respondents, however, are not precluded from initiating acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 04.03.2009 va [1] 2008 (5) ALD 302