IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10337 of 2002 Between: P.Venkata Lakshmi Kumari, W/o.Ravindranath, R/o.SBI Colony, Dorasanipally Village, Proddutur, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not acquiring the lands of the petitioner and in not paying compensation to her under the L.A.Act and in seeking to deprive her valuable property as otherwise than in due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional by consequently directing the respondents to forthwith acquire the lands of the petitioner in Sy.No.212/14 situated at Damaneedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, to the extent of 45 plots each admeasuring 33' X 54' by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and pay due compensation to the petitioner; Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.10337 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is misconceived. According to the petitioner, who claims to be the owner and to be in possession of an extent of Acs.11.29 cents of land in Survey No.212/14 of Damaneedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, for laying a road of 150’ width around Tirupathi Town, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published in the A.P.Gazette No.117 of 2000 on 16.09.2000. The petitioner’s land was however not notified for the acquisition. However, the road was laid through the petitioner’s land affecting 45 plots, which were approved in a layout, including 15 plots sold to third parties. Despite repeated representations of the petitioner, the respondents have neither removed the encroachment nor acquired the land of the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking, in substance, a direction to the respondents to acquire her land and to pay compensation for her dispossession. The petitioner has merely impleaded the District Collector, Chittoor, the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Tirupathi and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural to the writ petition, who, as arrayed in the writ petition, do not per se represent the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is trite that the power of eminent domain is exercised through the provisions of the Act by the State for a public purpose and not by State actors who cannot sue or cannot be sued in their designated status and not as officers of the State. Be that as it may. The petitioner’s substantive grievance is that the unlawful encroachement of her property by the respondents-State Actors should be regularized by resort to the process under the Act. Such a Mandamus, which would have the propensity of imposing a fiscal burden on a public exchequer, cannot be passed, in the absence of a formal instrument of acquisition pursued under the provisions of the Act commencing with a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. No Mandamus can be issued to acquire the lands under Section 4(1) of the Act because such acquisition decision is normally within the exclusive domain of the executive department of the State. If the petitioner is interested in restoration of her possession of the land from unlawful encroachment by the State actors, the appropriate remedy for her is to pursue strategies before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate alternative remedy in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dt.20.03.2009 VGB