IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10289 of 2009 Between: Chokkakula Kondamma, W/o.late Mallu Naidu R/o.D.No.26-8-20, Velampeta, Raja Rammohan Roy Raod, Visakhapatnam-I. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. 3 The East Coast Railway, reptd by its Deputy Executive Engineer Office Dondaparty, Visakhapatnam-16. 4 The East Coast Railway, reptd by its Divisional Railway Manager Dondaparty, Visakhapatnam-16. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to lay 3rd line railway track through petitioner's land in Survey No.488/1 to 9 through an extent of Ac 6-00 cents of Annammarajupeta Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District leading from Vizianagaram to Kothavalasa and making markings through her mango garden and erecting polls showing the marking of proposed 3rd line of railway track and in spite of legal notice dt. 7-5-2009 without issuing any notice and without following due process of law of acquiring the private property for the public purpose and paying the present market value as compensation for the land mango trees and palmirah trees which are well grown as illegal, arbitrary capricasus and violative of article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to lay 3rd line railway track through the petitioners land without following due process of law and without paying compensation for the land and trees as per the present market value or to pass an order. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent : MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10289 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in attempting to lay the 3rd line railway track through the petitioner’s land situated in Sy.No.488/1 to 9 to an extent of Ac.6.00 cents of Annammarajupeta Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District without following due process of law as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the above said six acres of land wherein a Mango garden surrounded by Palmyrah trees is existing. It is not in dispute that a double track railway line is existing on the Eastern side of the petitioner’s Mango garden. The petitioner alleges that the respondents 3 and 4, having proposed to construct the third track from Vizianagaram to Kothavalasa across the petitioner’s garden, started erecting the poles in the petitioner’s garden. It is also alleged that before taking up the said work, no notice was given to the petitioner nor any steps were taken for acquiring the land in question. Hence the present writ petition with the above prayer. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4 stating that the State Government was approached by the East-coast Railways vide proposals dated 21.4.1999 for acquisition of the land for laying the third railway line from Kothavalasa to Vizianagraram to remove the traffic congestion. A sum of Rs.4 crores was deposited towards the estimated land requirement of 13.92 hectares which included Ac.0.298 cents situated in Sy.No.480 of Annammarajupeta Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District. However since the said land was not surveyed nor identified the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not be initiated and moreover keeping in view that it was a small extent and there was uncertainity with regard to the title it was decided to exclude the area for the proposed 3rd railway line. Pursuant thereto, identification marks were duly removed. Thus, it is reiterated that there is no requirement of the land in Sy.No.480 of Sub-division No.1 and an alternative alignment is being considered. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, as on today no steps are being taken to lay the 3rd railway line across the land claimed by the petitioner in Sy.No.480 of Sub- division No.1 of Annammarajupeta Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District. It is also clear from the counter-affidavit that though there was a proposal for joint inspection and survey, the same has not yet taken place and a decision has been taken by the Railways to exclude the area in question and review the alignment. In the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner appears to be without any basis and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, recording the statement of the respondents 3 and 4 in their counter-affidavit that no action is initiated for levelling and taking possession of the land claimed by the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 04.06.2009 gbs