IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 398 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/02/2008 in WP NO : 18 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sagi Ramachandra Raju S/o Narasimha Raju R/o Gopulanka, H/o Injaram Village, Tallarevu mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Sagi Padmanabha Raju S/o Narasiha Raju R/o Gopulanka, H/o Injaram Village, Tallarevu mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Sagi Ramabhadra Raju S/o Narasimha Raju R/o Gopulanka, H/o Injaram Village, Tallarevu mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, cum Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada East Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru Mandal, Kajuluru, East Godavari District. 5 Manyam Kanakaiah S/o Kanaiaiah Sadanam Street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.A.K.KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 26-2-2008 passed in W.P.No. 18 of 2008 and W.P.M.P.No. 19 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. The case of the petitioners before the learned single Judge was that they had a right in respect of the land in question, which had been acquired and compensation had been determined under Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which has been paid to respondent No.5, ought to have been given to the appellants-petitioners. No evidence was adduced to show that the appellants-original petitioners were in possession or having any right or interest in the land in question and, therefore, the petition has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that by an oral agreement some of the lands, which had been acquired, had been purchased by the appellants. In the aforestated circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the amount, which had been deposited in the Revenue deposit and which is to be paid to respondent No.5, should not be released and a portion of that amount should be given to the appellants. In absence of any evidence to show that either the appellants- original petitioners were in possession of the land or they had any interest in the land, the submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellants cannot be accepted. We do not see any substance in the aforestated submission and we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th December, 2008. GRR