IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 28605 of 2008 Between: 1 Prakash S/o. Devidas Rao Kulkarni R/o. Tandur Village, Raikote Mandal, Zaheerabad Taluk, Medak District. 2 Sakkubai W/o. Bhaskar Rao, D/o. Devidas Rao Kulkarni R/o. H.No.17-1-471, Krishna Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Secretary to Government (Projects) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Singoor Project Sanga Reddy, Medak 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 may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more only in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the representation filed by the Petitioner along with the statement of compensation for payment of compensation in terms of the Award passed in O.P.No.120 of 1996 and O.P.No.116 of 1996 by the District Judge, Sanga Reddy along with the statement of compensation in both the O.Ps. on 14-8-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner for payment of compensation as per the representation dated 14-08-2008. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28605 of 2008 ORDER: Failure on the part of the respondents to pay the balance compensation is the subject matter in the present writ petition. The petitioners submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 14.08.2008 giving details and made a request for release of the balance compensation. Sri P.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would state that, instead of adjudication on merits, it would suffice if the writ petition was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation dated 14.08.2008 within a specified time. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for both the respondents would submit that a period of three months be granted for disposal of the said representation. Hence, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition itself directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ representation dated 14.08.2008 within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 30.12.2008 v v/ khm