IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23243 of 2008 Between: Talamati Subba Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy, R/o. Vendodu Village, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22. 2 The District Collector, Nellore District. 3 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur at Nellore. 4 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and CAD (Projects Wing) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22. .....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 declaring the inaction of the respondents in disbursing the proper compensation amount towards the Lands acquired for excavating the land for laying Telugu Ganga Channel. to the petitioner, as illegal arbitrary and against the spirit of Land Acquisition Act and also a blatant transgression of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India and violative of Arts. 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Acs.8.75 cents of land in survey Nos.263, 265, 267, 268 and 269 of Vendodu Village, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District. It is stated that a small bit of the said land is said to have been acquired for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project. The petitioner states that vast extent of remaining land is also aﬀected on account of digging and other activities carried thereon. He claims to have made several representations to the Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, the third respondent herein, for payment of compensation and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. On their part, the respondents have already acquired the land of the petitioner, which, according to them, is needed for a public purpose. The petitioner was also paid compensation. In case any area, over and above what was acquired is utilized for the same purpose or is rendered useless, the petitioner is entitled to claim the corresponding damages, such as severance charges in the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 itself, if it is pending. No direction can be issued straight away to the respondents to pay any compensation on such count. The second alternative for the petitioner is to file a suit. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.10.2008. kdl