THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23776 of 2007 Date: 04.02.2008 Between: Patlolla Kamalamma … Petitioner AND The Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Outer Ring Road, HUDA, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Y. Ravindra Counsel for respondents 2&3: Sri Ch. Pratap Reddy THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.23776 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in considering the claim of the petitioner made vide her representation dated 26.03.2007 with regard to payment of compensation for acquisition of lands to the extent of Ac.3.27 guntas out of Ac.4.19 guntas situated in Sy.No.32 and an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas out of Ac.6.12 guntas in Sy.No.36 of Velemela Village of Ram Chandrapuram Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner claimed that she is having legal title in respect of the abovementioned lands, having succeeded to the estate of her late husband Sri P. Veera Reddy, who was the son of one P. Anthi Reddy allegedly the original owner of the property. The petitioner claimed that after coming to know that the abovementioned land was notified for acquisition for execution of outer ring road project, she made a representation to respondent No.1, which was received on 26.03.2007 in his office. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.1 received the said representation, without disposing of the same, he is seeking to disburse the compensation amount in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a counter-affidavit and petition to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 22.01.2008. In their counter-affidavit they have mentioned that the writ petitioner along with other co-sharers sold the extent of Ac.4.32 guntas comprised in Sy.No.32 in favour of one Kodakanchi Yadaiah on 05.06.1980 under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration and that the purchaser Kodakanchi Yadaiah is the brother of respondent No.2 and that after his death, the said property devolved upon him and her sister, respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 thus resisted the claim of the petitioner that she has interest over the property. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Ravindra, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1 and Sri Ch. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed O.S.No.38 of 2007 in the Court of District Judge, Medak District at Sangareddy for partition of the property and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also parties to the said suit. He submitted that respondent No.1 is not justified in ignoring the representation filed by the petitioner to consider her claim before taking a decision on the payment of compensation. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that petitioner was divested of the title in the property with the execution of registered sale deed dated 05.06.1980 in favour of the brother of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that therefore the claim of the petitioner is baseless and speculative. Sri Y. Ravinder, learned Standing Counsel submitted that since the petitioner failed to file any document in proof of her claim, there is no obligation on the part of respondent No.1 in considering her claim. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner before taking a decision on the entitlement of the persons to receive compensation in respect of the disputed land. The question whether the petitioner raised a bona fide dispute or not is required to be gone into and decided by respondent No.1. The writ petition is therefore disposed of without going into the merits of the case. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.30962 of 2007 and WVMP.No.59 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2008 ES