IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 26320 of 2008 Between: Prabhakar Rao Vairagare S/o.Waman Rao R/o.H.No.10-16C,Asifabad,Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer Utnoor Division, Utnoor, Adilabad District 3 The Tahsildar, Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District 4 Atram Parvath Rao S/o.Sakku R/o.Dampur, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District 5 Atram Kanta Rao S/o.Hanumantha Rao R/o.Dampur, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District 6 Kotnak Shankar S/o.bheemu R/o.Dampur, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District 7 Voike Shankar S/o.Ramu R/o.Dampur, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District 8 Mesram Bhojji Rao S/o.Lingu R/o.Dampur, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District 9 Atram Jalpathi S/o.Sakk R/o.Dampur, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District 10 Tekam Ramaiah S/o.Mallaiah R/o.Takkalpalli Rebanna Mandal, Adilabad District 11 Tekam Pochaiah S/o.Mallaiah R/o.Takkalpalli Rebanna Mandal, Adilabad District 12 Tekam Lachubai W/o.Bheema R/o.Peda Kunta village Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District 13 Kumaram Bhanu S/o.Poti R/o.Peda Kunta village Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue an order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent in pursuance of the representation dated 24.9.2008 by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14,19,21,& 300A of Constitution of India and by holding that the Respondent failed to perform its statutory duty consequently direct the respondent to take action on the representation dated 24.9.2008 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMAKRISHNA.K Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26320 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.63.04 gts situated at Peddakunta Village, Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District. The land is comprised in different survey numbers as alleged in para 3 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. First respondent issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) proposing to acquire land in said Village for formation of extension of Khairguda OCP at Pedakunta Village. The petitioner is shown as pattadar of land in respect of survey Nos.3, 8/1/1, 8/3/1, 9/1, 21/1, 22, 23, 24/1, 24/3 and 24/4. However, in column No.3 of schedule to the notification, in respect of said survey numbers, respondent Nos.4 to 13 are shown as cultivators. The petitioner alleges that notification is based on tampered records at the instance of unofficial respondents and therefore, he gave representation on 24.09.2008 to first respondent (District Collector) alleging that third respondent and his subordinates are involved in tampering and misguiding the officials and requested to enquire into the matter, in vain. Even before expiry of two months, after submitting the representation to first respondent, instant writ petition is filed seeking a direction to first respondent to conduct enquiry. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner. Petitioner does not dispute that when the land was proposed for acquisition he submitted a claim petition before second respondent (LAO) raising all these questions. In such an event, it would be a superfluous exercise for first respondent again to take up enquiry as a quasi-judicial authority under the Act. Second respondent can go into all questions and if it is found third respondent is responsible for tampering and such tampering has cast prejudice to public administration, second respondent can after obtaining necessary sanction launch prosecution against responsible officers. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to admit the writ petition. Petitioner is given liberty to raise all his contentions before second respondent and produce documents. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 03rd December, 2008 GHN To 1 The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer Utnoor Division, Utnoor, Adilabad District 3 The Tahsildar, Thiryani Mandal, Adilabad District 4 2CCs to GP for Revenue 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}