IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 2787 of 2004 Between: Bonta Ramaiah S/o. Sri Sattaiah R/o.Yadavula Bazar, Near Anjaneya Temple, Kondapally Village, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. the Sub-Collector, Near P.W.D.Grounds, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Assistant Divisional Officer/Executive Officer of Tarajarana Lift Irrigation Scheme, Irrigation Office, Near PWD Grounds, Vijayawada-2, Krishna District. 3 The Joint Collector, Chilakalaguda, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any Writ order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in taking possession of the land of the petitioner herein in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in R.S.No.181/2A2 and an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in RS.No.181/1 & 182/2 situated at Kondapally [V] & [M], Krishna District of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and proceedings with the lift irrigation scheme without following the procedure stated under Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitution and further setaside the same as illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Oral order: The petitioner is aggrieved that his land in an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in R.S.No. 181/2A2 and an extent of Ac.0-20 cents in R.S.No.181/1 and 182/2 in Kodapally (Village and Mandal), Krishna District has been taken over by the respondents without following due process of law under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) or any other law applicable. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner has not chosen to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party respondent. He has merely impleaded the Land Acquisition Officer, the Assistant Divisional Officer of Tarakarama Lift Irrigation Scheme and the Joint Collector of Chilakalaguda, Machilipatnam, as parties to the writ petition. Against any unlawful activities by these respondents, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of preferring a complaint if there is any discernable commission of a cognizable offence or by way of appropriate proceedings before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Since the State is not a party, no relief could be granted. On behalf of the respondents, a counter has been filed by the Sub-Collector. Therein it is pleaded that pursuant to a requisition by the Irrigation department, acquisition of land in an extent of Ac.13-34 cents in Kondapally Village was proposed and a draft notification and draft declaration under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have been issued. These notifications have been published in the Gazette and local publications have also made as also the substance published in the locality. Notices were served on all the interested persons who also appeared before the District Negotiations Committee on 27-11-2003. After observing due formalities, the quantum of compensation was determined and consent award was passed on 5-3-2004 for an extent of Ac.13-07 cents and a compulsory award was passed for an extent of Ac.0- 27 cents in R.S.No.366/4A1B vide Award No. 9 of 2004 dated 10- 3-2004. In so far as the petitioner’s land is concerned, it is stated that the lands were taken possession of only after following the due process of law and passing an award. The petitioner’s allegation that the lands were acquired without following due process has been clearly and categorically denied including by furnishing particulars of the notifications under the provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the Act and the particulars and dates of the awards passed. In the light of the averments in the counter-affidavit which have not been denied by the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to implead the State as respondent in the writ petition, no relief is warranted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 31st March, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies