THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 26990 OF 2011 Dated: 29.09.2011 Between : Dr. Mirza Nauman Baig … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26990 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to surrender the land in his possession for the purpose of road-widening is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks to set aside the proceedings of the 4th respondent – The Joint Collector, Hyderabad – dated 22.09.2011 whereunder the petitioner’s request to take into consideration the sale deeds of the year 2007 for fixation of market value for the acquired land. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Municipal No.11-6-874, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad which was acquired for a public purpose i.e., improvement of Lakdi-ka-pool junction by issuing notification dated 7.7.2011 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). Challenging the said notification, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.20115 of 2011 contending that the action of the respondent in attempting to take possession of the acquired land without considering the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternate commercial property of A-category in the city or to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per sq. yard was arbitrary and illegal. Having taken note of the fact that the impugned notification was issued invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act, this Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 18.07.2011 holding that the respondents were entitled to take possession on expiration of 15 days from the publication of Section 9 (1) notice and that the mere pendency of the petitioner’s representation for compensation / allotment of alternate land was not a ground to restrain the respondents from taking possession. Admittedly the said order became final and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed his claim for compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer on 6.8.2011 along with other claimants. The present writ petition is filed contending that the action of the respondents in issuing revised notifications from time to time to acquire the property of the petitioner resulting in mental harassment and monetary loss to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that since the initial notification was issued in the year 2007 the petitioner could not develop the property in question and that as per the Registered Sale Deed, dated 9.3.2007 relating to the adjacent property the petitioner should be granted compensation at least Rs.2,10,000/- per sq. yard. As could be seen, the entire grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the quantum of compensation for the land acquired. Since the award is yet to be passed and the award enquiry is in progress, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion on any of the above contentions advanced by the petitioner. In fact, the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative statutory remedies available with regard to the petitioner’s grievance for just compensation. So far as the validity of the acquisition proceedings is concerned, as noticed above, this Court has already rejected the petitioner’s contentions in W.P.No.20115 of 2011 and it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the issue. Even the petitioner’s grievance with regard to the proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 22.09.2011 need not be gone into in this writ petition since the said proceedings / endorsement dated 22.09.2011 is only an intimation during the award enquiry with regard to consideration of the documents produced by the petitioner for fixation of the market value of the land acquired. Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.09.2011 Ivd