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 SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12001 of 2005 Between: Ramisetti Ravi S/o. Seenaiah R/o. Allur, Allur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Distict Collector, Nellore District, Nellore. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Allur Mandal, Allur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from Ac.1.01 cents of wet land in Survey No.474 of Allur Village and Mandal, Nizambad District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above mentioned land having got the same under registered settlement deed dated 25-07-2003 executed by his paternal uncle Sri M.Ramaiah. He alleged that the respondents visited his land on 04-06-2005 and measured it. His grievance is that no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) have been initiated and that the respondents cannot deny him the land in question without following due process of law. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Allur Mandal, Nellore District filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is mentioned that the land in question is proposed for acquisition for providing house sites, that M.Ramaiah, who is the original owner of the property, gave his consent for acquiring the above mentioned property in the year 2003, that the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the gazette on 02-04- 2004 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23- 06-2004 in the official gazette and the substance of the notification and declaration were published in the locality on 09-05-2004 and 15-07- 2004 respectively apart from the notification having been published in Vartha daily news paper on 29-05-2004. It is alleged that when the land acquisition proceedings were about to be completed, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, suppressing the material facts. No reply-affidavit is filed contradicting the above mentioned averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Inasmuch as the respondents have initiated proceedings under the Act by publishing a notification and declaration under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, the plea of the petitioner that he is sought to be denied the property in question without following due process of law cannot be accepted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to question the land acquisition proceedings by availing appropriate remedy, if he so chooses. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.15280 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 17th June, 2008 vrn