IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.913 of 2009 Between: S. Chandra Naik ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for respondents 1-3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondents 4&5: Sri P. Narahari Babu The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.913 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in trying to disburse the compensation amount in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 pending title dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on the other in respect of Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.88-3 of B.Settipalli Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Ananthapur District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was assigned the abovementioned extent of land by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilamathur, on 02.12.1996. The said land was taken over for the purpose of speical economic zone (SEZ). Apprehending that respondent Nos.1 to 3 will disburse the compensation to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Sub-Collector, Penukonda Division, Ananthapur District, respondent No.2, filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has inter alia stated that the land in question was resumed from the petitioner by the then Tahsildar, Chilamathur Mandal on 08.03.2004 and was subsequently assigned to respondent No.4 on 25.05.2004. He has filed a copy of resumption proceedings in R.Dis.No.3/2004, dated 08.03.2004 in support of this averment. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner received the counter affidavit, along with the enclosures, in the year 2009, neither a reply affidavit was filed nor steps have been taken to question the resumption order. So long as the order of resumption remains in force, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the land or compensation payable for it. In view of the above facts, the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for questioning the resumption order at his option. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.1161 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.04.2011 ES Note: Issue C.C. in one week. ES.