IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8530 of 2005 Between: Japala Ramaiah, S/o. J. Maraiah, R/o. Kishanpally (Hamlet), Mall (G.P), Nallavelly (V), Yacharam (M), Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 Land Acquisition Officer, Special Deputy Collector (L.A: Industries), O/o. District Collector, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, one in the nature of writ of mandamus, (i) declaring the action of the respondents in not notifying the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.1.09 gts in Sy.No.695 of Nallavelly Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently not paying compensation under the L.A.Act, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and the same is contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble Larger Bench reported in 2004(2) ALD 451, and set aside the proceedings of 3rd respondent dt.17-01-2005. (ii) A direction may be issued to the respondents to notify the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.1.09 gts in Sy.No.695 of Nallavelly (V), Yacharam Mandal, RRDist., under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, by issuing an errata to earlier notification and consequently pay compensation to the petitioner.” Sri B.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition has become infructuous. In view of the statement of the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.11269 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 17th June, 2008. kvni