IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTY DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13296 of 2009 Between: Vakicherla Venkateswarlu, S/o. Gangaiah Setty, D.No.1-253, Nwabpet, Main Road, Nellore-2 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector, (LA), Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, (LA), Guduru, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. 3 Sri Aitha Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Vannur Setty, R/o. D.No.212, 10th Cross, Annapurna NLY, CV Raman Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka State. 4 Aitha Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o. Vannur Setty, Chinthavaram Vill and Post, Chilkur Mdl., Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. .....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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide Rc.G2/4341/2008, dated -2-2009 in including the names of the 3rd & 4th respondents as owner of the lands in sy.Nos. 806 Ac.1443 cents, 708-1 Ac.688, 671 Ac 444 cents, 397 Ac.362, 410 Ac. 4.30 cents. 414 Ac 6.65 cents, 416 Ac 0.70 cents, 417 Ac. 1.01 cents, 678 Ac.2.72 cents, 701-2 Ac.0.99 cents and Sy.No.446 B Ac.0.45 cents of Kothapatnam Vilalge Kota Mandal SPS Nellore Dist as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and further direct the 2nd respondent not to disburse the amount to the 3rd & 4th respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMAMOHAN-MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R : The petitioner asserts that his brother and himself are the absolute owners and possessors of various extents of lands in Sy. Nos.806, 708-1, 671, 397, 410, 414, 416, 417, 678, 701-2 and 446-B situated in Kothapatnam village, Mota Mandal, Nellore District. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Notification dated 02.10.2008 proposing to acquire the lands in question for establishment of industries without mentioning the petitioner’s name as beneficiary but mentioning the unofficial respondents as owners of the lands in question. Then, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 11.2.2009 to the 1st and 2nd respondents requesting them to consider his case for payment of compensation. Acting upon the legal notice, the 1st respondent, vide Proceedings No.RcG2/4341/2008 dated 02.2009, directed the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry with regard to the title of the property and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner also submitted a Will executed by one Vakicherla Meenamma in favour of the petitioner’s father claiming ownership of the property, and now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 2nd respondent, with conducting enquiry, is taking steps to pass award and pay compensation to the 3rd and 4th respondents, who have nothing do with the lands in question. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has produced a letter dated 4.7.2009 addressed to him by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in pursuance of the message received from Collectorate SPS Nellore over phone on 4.7.2009, wherein it is stated that the Government have resumed the lands in question as they are Government lands and the writ petitioner filed xerox copy of “Veelunama” Dated 7.8.1972 executed by Vakicherla Meenamma in favour of Vakicherla Gangaiah Setty on 20.6.2009. Except this unregistered Will, he has not filed any other documents. The petitioner was asked to file original copy of the above “Veelunama” at the time of enquiry, but he failed to file the same on 27.6.2009 and 29.6.2009. At his request, the case was finally posted for hearing on 6.7.2009, and on which date he was asked to file the original copy of the “Veelunama”. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. A perusal of the contents of the letter dated 4.7.2009 addressed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, to the Government Pleader, would disclose that the petitioner filed xerox copy of the Will dated 7.8.1972 said to have been executed by Vakicherla Meenamma in favour of Vakicherla Gangaiah Setty, but he did not file original of the said Will at the time of enquiry. As for determination of the title of the petitioner, looking into the Will was necessary, the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to produce the original, and as he failed to produce it on several occasions, the 2nd respondent finally posted the matter for hearing to this day at the request of the petitioner. This indicates that the 2nd respondent is taking necessary steps for completing the enquiry, and the petitioner, in spite of being aware of these proceedings, has filed this writ petition, and at this juncture, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the enquiry proceedings. Hence, I see no merits in this writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. 6th July, 2009. bcj