IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26474 of 2007 Between: B.Viswanatha Reddy, S/o.B.Narsa Reddy, R/o.H.No.3-4-313, 3rd Floor, Suryanarayana Appartments,Lingampally,Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P, Rep.by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development(II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep.by its Vice-Chairman, Police Lines, Rasoolpura, Sec-Bad 3 Hyderabad Airport Development Authority, Rep.by its Vice Chairman, Taranaka, Hyd 4 Special Deputy Collector(LA) Unit.1, Outer Ring Road, HUDA, Hyderabad 5 The Project Director and Special Collector, Outer Ring Road, HUDA Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad .....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 issue a writ, one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring the notifications No.C/ORR/536/06 dt.17-4-2006 issued by the 1st respondent under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and the consequent proceedings No.C/TS/536/2006 dt.30-12-2006 under Sections 5-A 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 to the extent of land in an extent of Acs.15.33 gts in Sy.No.161 of Srinagar(V) Maheshwaram(M) R.R Dist out of which the petitioner owns Ac.2.00 guntas, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 and 300-A of the constitution and consequently quash the same and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.SESHASAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN. Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5: SRI Y.RAVINDRA, SC FOR HU The Court made the following : ORDER: Learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy and others v. Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another[1]. Therefore, this writ petition is also liable to be allowed in terms of the said judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notifications are quashed to the extent of the land belonging to the petitioner. The respondents, however, are not precluded from initiating acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 04.03.2009 va [1] 2008 (5) ALD 302