IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1580 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated in NO : OF on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Takoor Kishore Singh S/o Late Ramdayal Singh, 2 Takoor Kiran Singh S/o late Ashok Singh, 3 Takoor Vijaya Bai W/o late Ashok SIngh, All Are R/o. H.NO. 5-4- 112/1, New Abadi Mahabubabad Village (All are represented by their Spl. GPA Holder Ghanapurapu Anjaiah S/o Somaiah aged 42 years Occ: Business, R/o 1-5-107, Station Road, Mahaboobabad Village, & Mandal, Warangal District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector, (Panchayat Raj) Warangal District. 2 The Deputy Engineer, Panchayat Raj mahaboobabad, Warangal District. 3 Asst. Engineer, Panchayat Raj Mahaboobabad Warangal District. 4 Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, Mahaboobabad Mandal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1580 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 17-10-2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20979 of 2008. 3. Appellants are petitioners and respondents are respondents in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not settling and paying the compensation with interest from the date of taking over possession of the petitioners’ lands admeasuring 5022.22 square yards out of total extent of Acs.24-00 in Survey Nos.647 to 657, situated at Mahaboobabad village and Mandal, Warangal District, which was acquired for the purpose of laying ‘Necklace Road’ as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the actual owners of Acs.24-00 of land in Survey Nos.647 to 657, situated at Mahaboobabad village and Mandal, Warangal District. While so, the Gram Panchayat laid a ‘Necklace Road’ around a tank, nearby the village, and in the process, utilized the land of the petitioners to an extent of 5022.22 square yards. Questioning the said alleged arbitrary action of the respondents, representations have been made by the petitioners for payment of compensation, which proved to be futile. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit stating that ‘Necklace Road’ was laid around Nizam Tank, but no private land was utilized in laying the road. Therefore, from the said denial in the counter affidavit, it is the case of the respondents that the land belonging to the petitioners was not at all acquired and whereas there was utilization and deemed acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners in an extent of 5022.22 square yards. This is purely a question of fact, inasmuch as, it is a case where the claim and counter-claim a which was acquired for the purpose of laying ‘Neckless Road’ 5. The petitioner was appointed as a Dealer for Retail Sale of Petrol, Diesel and other Petroleum Products from the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (for brevity “the Corporation”) and owned a outlet at Chinnabadam Post, Kasibugga, Srikakulam District. It appears that the authorities have conducted an inspection at the outlet of the petitioner and in that process they collected the required number of samples, out of which one sample was sent to the Laboratory of the Corporation for testing. Basing on the report of the Laboratory and having found that there is adulteration in the Diesel, a show cause notice, dated 10-06-2008, has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner offered his explanation on 18-06-2008 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. No decision has yet been taken by the authorities basing on the explanation offered by the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner has made a request to send the second sample for testing to an independent Laboratory. The said request of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the Corporation by order, dated 29-07-2008, on the ground that the hinges of the wooden box containing the retention sample container were tampered. It was also observed that the cellophane tape, which was stuck around the wooden box, was also altered. These two factors, which have already been taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, dated 21-10-2008, would only reveal that the sampling container was tampered. In such an event, there is any amount of justification for the Corporation to reject the request of the petitioner to send the second sample to an independent Laboratory. 6. In fact, there is no complaint as regards the opinion expressed by the Laboratory of the Corporation, which conducted the test on the sample, and basing on the report of the Laboratory only the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the collection of samples itself was not properly done. According to the learned counsel the samples should have been collected in a glass container, instead of collecting the same in a wooden container, as was done in the present case. 8. However, no information is forthcoming as to whether these averments were specifically made in the explanation offered by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 9. Notwithstanding the above facts, there is a categorical finding recorded by the Corporation that the hinges of the wooden box containing the retention sample were tampered. In such an event, the request made by the petitioner deserves to be rejected and this Court cannot interfere and issue any directions as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, dated 21-10-2008, of the learned Single Judge and consequently, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 03-12-2008. Msr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1580 of 2008 03-12-2008 (Msr)