IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.426 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19-02-2008 in W.P.No.22403 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court) Between: 1 Datharu Pochaiah, S/o. Lakshmiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 D. lakshmaiah, S/o. Lakshmaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 D. Narasimha, S/o. Lakshmaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 D. Maisamma, W./o.Ramaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5 D. Yadagiri, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6 D. Maisaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7 D. Pandu, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 8 Chellimalla Swamy, S/o.Ramaswamy, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9 Chellimalla Bikshapati, S/o. Ramaswamy, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 10 D. Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 11 D. Atchaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 12 D. Pochaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 13 D. lakshmaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 14 Chellimalla Yadi Reddy, S/o. Sattaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 15 Chellimalla Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Sattaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 16 Chellimalla Buchi Reddy, S/o. Sattaiah, R/o. Rangapuram Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... APPELLANTS AND 1 Government of A.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector and Magistrate, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District. 5 Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, rep. by its Director, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for Appellants: Mr. V. Raja Manohar Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for Respondent No.5: Mr. S.S. Bhatt The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in W.P.No.22403 of 2006 on 19-02-2008, this appeal has been filed. Prayer of the appellants-original petitioners in the said petition was that notification issued under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of lands bearing Sy.Nos.76, 77, 78, 79/2, 80/2 and 85/2, situated at Rangapur Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District be quashed and set aside. After hearing the concerned Advocates and upon perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government authorities, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition and being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellants have filed this appeal. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, it appears that the land in question is sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing a medical university named NIMS University. The said university would not only be having a medical college but would also be having a hospital managed by NIMS. According to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent authorities, possession of the land in question has already been taken and award has also been passed. A plan giving details as to how the university is to be constructed has also been placed on record by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the concerned Government authorities. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we find that possession of the land in question has already been taken and as submitted by the learned Advocate General, the land which has been acquired has already been covered by a compound wall and the respondent authorities have spent more than Rs.2 crores for covering the land admeasuring approximately Ac.161.00 guntas for the purpose of construction of the afore-stated compound wall. The averment made by learned Senior Advocate Sri Bojja Tarakam that the land, which has been acquired by the Government authorities, which belongs to the appellants, was forming part of a lake is also not found to be correct. Upon perusal of the plan, it is clear that some construction has already been put up in the area where the university is to be established. In view of the fact that possession has already been taken and award has been made, and for the other reasons stated in the order, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. We do not see any reason to interfere with the just order passed by the learned single Judge, as award has already been made in respect of the land in question. Submission regarding acquiring other lands or getting other land from Bhoodhan Board will not help the appellants as possession has already been taken and plans have also been made for construction. Moreover a huge amount has already been spent by the Government. In the circumstances, submissions made on behalf of the appellants cannot be accepted. It has lastly been submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants that some land be given to the poor appellants, who are agriculturists and who had been given the land in question by the Boodhan Board for cultivation. We are sure that the Government authorities will consider the request and will do the needful, if possible, to grant some agricultural land to the persons whose lands have been acquired by the Government. Needless to say that compensation must have been paid, and, therefore, the appellants would not have any right to get agricultural land, but the Government authorities may consider the afore-stated suggestion with due sympathy and subject to availability of land and policy of the State. With the foregoing observations, the appeal is dismissed. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. December 11, 2008 MRR