IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :21026 of 2000 Between: N.Anajneyulu, S/o Pitchaih, R/o Bedsupalli, Chenduvoi, Atloor Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, (L.A.), Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-I,Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 The Secretary Irrigation and CAD (P.W), Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.N.HEMENDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to calculate the amount of compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) including the beneﬁts under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the Act, in respect of structure bearing D.No.8 in S.No.474/3 of Reach No.9B of Chenduvoi Village, and pay the same to the petitioner. Heard Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Revenue and perused the record. In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner averred that the respondents acquired the above-mentioned structure for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project (Somasila Project) under a notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 05.05.1992, and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and published on 30.04.1993. He further averred that Award No.16/93-94, dated 30.03.1994 was passed in respect of other structures acquired under the said notiﬁcation except the above mentioned structure and that on the representations made by the petitioner, the Government sanctioned Rs.50,660/- by G.O.Rt.No.347, dated 28.05.1996 and as the same was not paid, the petitioner ﬁled Writ Petition No.26792 of 1998 in this Court. The petitioner also averred that by interim order, dated 20.06.1999 in WPMP.No.32581 of 1998 in the said writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to pay the amount of Rs.50,660/- within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and that the petitioner was accordingly paid the said sum on 29.10.1999. He pleaded that on the same day, he ﬁled an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of the dispute to the civil Court and that for the reasons not known to the petitioner, the respondents have not made any reference. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.1 in his letter addressed to respondent No.3 stated that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Rs.76,032/-, the petitioner was sanctioned only a sum of Rs.50,660/- ignoring the said request. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Special Deputy Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-I, it is inter alia stated that though the structure of the petitioner was acquired, due to non-availability of estimates from the concerned Engineering Departments, amount was not awarded towards the said structure and that subsequently, G.O.Rt.No.347, dated 28.05.1996 was amended in G.O.Rt.No.654, dated 29.10.1996 providing for payment of compensation for the said structure and as the validity of the said amended G.O. expired, payment could not be made without issuing fresh G.O. and in accordance with the interim direction of this Court, Rs.50,660/- sanctioned by the Government was paid to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner owns Zinc Sheet shed without walls in Survey No.474/3 of Chenduvoi Village, for which the Government sanctioned ex gratia amount of Rs.50,660/-, which was paid pending Writ Petition No.26792 of 1998. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is not aware of the outcome of Writ Petition No.26792 of 1998. The payment of Rs.50,660/- was made in pursuance of the interim direction issued by this Court in the said writ petition. If the petitioner is dissatisﬁed about the quantum of compensation, the appropriate course for him is to pursue Writ Petition No.26792 of 1998 to its logical end. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot maintain a separate writ petition for enhancement of compensation. As the petitioner did not ﬁle the papers including the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of Writ Petition No.26792 of 1998, it is not possible for this Court to appreciate the scope of that writ petition. At any rate, the petitioner ought to have claimed comprehensive reliefs in the said writ petition and he is not permitted to split the causes of action and ﬁle separate writ petitions for separate reliefs. It is made clear that if the petitioner is dissatisﬁed with the quantum of compensation and had already made a request for reference of the dispute, he is at liberty to pursue the same in appropriate proceedings. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.26732 of 2000 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 28th JULY, 2008. kvni