IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.18097 of 2006 Between: Taduri Padmaja ..... Petitioner AND 1.Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director at Secunderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri TCD.Sekhar Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri.Ravindra Yanamandra, SC for HUDA Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Notification No.G1/824/2006, dated 23-07-2006, issued by respondent No.3, and consequential form 3 Notification No.LA/622/HUDA/2005, dated 27-07-2006, issued by respondent No.1, in respect of plot No.31 admeasuring 264.79 square meters situated in Survey No.64/part of Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that an extent of Ac.0-23 guntas was notified for junction improvement at Hi-tech City, Madhapur, out of which 83 square yards belongs to the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondents have finally acquired only 11 square yards of land belonging to the petitioner. Sri TCD.Sekhar, learned Counsel, representing Sri P.Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the acquisition proceedings in respect of 11 square yards were stated to have been completed, the respondents may be directed to pay compensation to his client. Sri Ravindra Yanamandra, learned Standing Counsel for HUDA representing respondent No.1, submitted that several notices, sent to the petitioner, have returned unserved and that the award amount of Rs.1,88,000/- is lying with respondent No.1. He further stated that respondent No.1 has, absolutely, no objection for payment of the said amount to the petitioner as and when he approaches it. Having regard to the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach respondent No.1 and receive the compensation amount. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law if she feels dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.22715 of 2006, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 21st June, 2011 lur