HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY W.P. No. 16172 of 2009 DATED: 28.01.2010 Between: Pentapati Chinamutyalu .. Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P. and two others .. Respondents O R D E R:- The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though he made representation dated 20.10.2006 requesting the respondents to pay suitable compensation for acquiring his lands in an extent of Ac.0.32 cents in Sy.No.69-1, Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.69-5A, Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.69-6A and Ac.0.01 cent in Sy.No.69-7A situated in Ullibhadra village, Garugubilli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, the respondents have not paid him any compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on receiving written instructions from the 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Collector, has submitted that the petitioner’s lands have already been acquired and an Award dated 15.09.2006 was passed under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), and the compensation was disbursed to the land owners on 09.10.2006 and all the awardees except the petitioner have received the cheques towards payment of compensation. It is further submitted that so far as the compensation to the petitioner is concerned, inasmuch as he did not approach the authorities to receive the cheque, the compensation was not paid to him, and the respondents are ready to pay the compensation and disburse the cheques. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not even communicated with a copy of the Award passed under Section 11(2) of the Act, and he has not given any consent to the Award. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The validity of the Award passed under Section 11(2) of the Act is not the subject matter of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, whether the petitioner has given his consent or not, is a matter, which cannot be gone into in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, as much as it is stated that the petitioner has not furnished with a copy of the Award, and he also did not receive the compensation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to approach respondent No.3- Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), and seek to supply a copy of the Award, dated 15.09.2006, by paying the requisite fee. On such payment, respondent No.3 shall furnish a copy of the Award to the petitioner and also pay compensation amount as per the Award. However, it is also made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the Award, it is open for him to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th January, 2010 bcj/ajr