THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15537 of 2010 Date: 23.09.2011 Between: G.Anthony Reddy … Petitioners And Union of India, New Delhi and 23 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 15537 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner herein claims to have purchased Ac.4-00 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.264/Part and Sy.No.276 situated at Ghatkesar Village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District, under Registered Agreements of Sale-cum- General Power of Attorney with Possession, dated 15.06.2006 and 22.11.2006. Out of the said land, Ac.2-09 guntas was acquired invoking the provisions of Section 3-A of National Highways Act, 1956. Pursuant thereto, an award was passed by the 2nd respondent determining the compensation payable for the land acquired. It is pleaded that though the petitioner submitted his claim petition, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent is proceeding to pay the compensation to his vendors - the respondents 3 to 8 herein. Aggrieved by the said action of the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s claim and pay compensation to him for the acquired land pursuant to the notification dated 31.12.2009. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Since the respondents 3, 5 & 6 died, their legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 9 to 24. The respondent No.7 filed a counter-affidavit stating that he along with respondents 4, 6 & 8 and the legal heirs of the respondents 3 and 5 sold the land in question to the petitioner prior to the acquisition. It is also stated that they did not file any claim before the Land Acquisition Officer and they were not interested in respect of the land in question since the same was already sold to the petitioner. Similar affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents 9 to 24. Despite notice, the respondent No.8 did not choose to appear. The learned counsel for appearing for the respondents 3 to 24, while submitting that though the acquisition was subsequent to the same, the name of the petitioner was not shown in the notification, reiterated that the petitioner alone is entitled to receive the compensation for the land acquired. Having regard to the fact that the respondents 3 to 24 are not disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the compensation in respect of the land in question, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim and pay the compensation to which he is entitled to as per law for the land acquired. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 23.09.2011 KLP