THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.1259 of 2009 Dated 25th April, 2011 Between: Sompalli Chinnabba Naidu and another …Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hydrabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Sudhakar Rao Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition 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 declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ lands comprised in Survey Nos.1211/1, 1211/2 and 1203 of Moravapalli Village, Damalcheruvu Hamlet, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District, without invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their lands referred to above. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, wherein it i s inter alia stated the land acquisition proceedings were in fact initiated by publishing draft notification and draft declaration on 06.03.2009 and 08.03.2009 respectively by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further stated that the petitioners have interest only in Acs.2.74 cents of land and that by invoking the provisions of the Act, the respondents have complied with the legal requirement. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that since the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is dispensed with, the petitioners were obviously not aware of the acquisition proceedings. Even though the respondents have not filed the copies of the notification and the declaration issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act respectively, I have no reason to doubt the stand of the respondents that the acquisition proceedings in fact were initiated. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such proceedings, they shall be free to question the same by availing appropriate remedy. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant of relief in this writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 29.01.2009, which was extended until further orders on 09.06.2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.1585 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3687 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th April, 2011 VGB