IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18285 of 2002 Between: Mummareddi Venkateswara Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.K.Shivasankar for Mr.G.Krishna Murthy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared. The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying compensation to him in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4-15 ½ cents in Survey No.79/2 out of Ac.8-31 cents and Ac.1-00 in Survey No.75/3A out of Ac.2- 00 of Peddapuram Village, East Godavari District, as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner died and that steps are required to be taken for bringing his legal representatives on record. However, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition pointed out from the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, APIIC, Visakhapatnam, that in view of the dispute regarding half share of compensation, a sum of Rs.8,41,171/- was ordered to be kept in deposit in Subordinate Court, Peddapuram, under Section 31 (2) of the Act, to decide the rival claims for compensation, vide proceedings Ref.SDC/LA/APIIC/26/96, dated 19-09-2002 of the Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, APIIC, Kakinada. In view of the stand taken by the Special Deputy Collector, APIIC, Visakhapatnam, in the counter-affidavit referred to above, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration. The legal representatives of the petitioner are entitled to participate in the proceedings before the civil Court to claim compensation. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 24-09-2002, is vacated and WPMP.No.22991 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21st January, 2010 lur