IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 19798 of 2007 Between: Beeram Lakshmi, W/o. Late Raghava Reddy, R/o. LCH 385, LCH Colony, Near Community Hall, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Secretary, Land Acquisition, Outer Ring Road Project, Secretariate, Hyderabad. 2 The Project Director and Special Collector, Land Acquisition Outer Ring Road Project, Tarnaka, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. 3 Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the compensation amount to me in spite of demolition of my House/plot bearing NO. 164, in category E.W.S in phase -1 admeasuring 32.29 Sq. Yds in Sy.No. 626/1 of Shamshabad Residential Complex, situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of Outer Ring Road by the Respondents as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation and allot alternative house/plot under special package scheme to me in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SANGAN NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 19798 of 2007 O R D E R: It appears, the lands of the petitioner were acquired by invoking the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Award is passed and compensation has also been paid. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the Government has framed a scheme under G.O.Ms.No. 14 dated 18.12.2006 and under the said scheme she is entitled for certain benefits, such as, allotment of plots etc. but the same is not being extended in her favour though it is extended in respect of other land losers. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for extending the benefits under the scheme introduced under G.O.Ms.No. 14 dated 18.12.2006 and pass appropriate orders as per law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 18-03-2009. MVB.