THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.770 OF 2009 Dt.14.9.2009 Between: Kokku Vasantha … Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh Department of Enerty, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary Hyderabad, and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.770 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by an order dt.1.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.26682 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the land owner whose land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of a Power Project. We have heard the learned Advocates. The grievance, which was ventilated before the learned Single Judge, was that the objections raised by the land owner had not been duly considered by the respondent authorities. We do not find any substance in the said submission. All the objections had been duly considered by the respondent authorities. The case of the appellant/petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant was a small farmer and therefore the appellant’s land should not have been acquired. We had called for a complete sketch showing the land, which is sought to be acquired and the land, which is required for the purpose of establishment of the Power Project. Upon perusal of the sketch, it is very clear that the land of the appellant is situated within the land required and it is not possible to exclude the land. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the land belonging to the appellant should not have been acquired. We do not find any substance in the appeal and the appeal is therefore dismissed. The last apprehension of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the appellant would not be paid her compensation within the reasonable period and he putforth the appellant’s difficulties. We are sure that the respondent authorities shall make payment of compensation to the appellant as soon as possible and in that event, the respondent authorities would be saving the amount of interest, which they might have to pay in future. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14.09.2009 bnr