IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 508 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/02/2008 in WP NO : 3770 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Peddinti Sitaramacharyulu S/o. Anantha Seshacharyulu R/o. Kolanka Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Peddinti Srinivasacharyulu S/o. Anantha Seshacharyulu R/o. Kolanka Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Peddinti Venkata Rao S/o. Anantha Seshacharyulu R/o. Kolanka Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.E.V.V.S.RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. The only submission which has been made by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants is that some details with regard to poramboke land had been given to the authorities by the appellants at a later point of time. It is an admitted fact that relevant material with regard to availability of poramboke land had not been given at the time when the objections were filed by the appellants. In view of the above fact, we do not find any error committed by the learned single Judge, because the facts which were placed on record by the appellants after the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was over, could not have been looked into by the authorities. For the reasons stated hereinabove and for the reasons stated by the learned single Judge, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {MSN}