IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5229 of 2008 Between: S. Guru Murthy S/o.Late Guruvulu R/o. Door No. 5-92, Chandrampalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, VUDA, Visakhapatnam. 2 The State of A.P., Rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Tahasildar, Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to acquire the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac 1.30 cents in Sy.No. 147/1 of Chandrampalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Rural ignoring the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and violating the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above extent of land. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to acquire the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in S.No.147/1 situated in Chandrampalem village without initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”), as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the authorities have come to the land in question and tried to dispossess him. From this, it is obvious that it is only on a mere apprehension that the petitioner’s land may be acquired for the purpose of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ________________ 12.03.2008 bcj