IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17450 of 2007 Between: 1 G.Sai Kumar S/o.G.Krishna Murthy 2 G.Leela Kumari W/o.Sri Sai Kumar 3 G.V.Krishna Kumar S/o.G. Sai Kumar 4 G.Mrudula Kumari W/o.Sasikanth (All the petitioners are residents of Flat No.503, Sri Sailaja Heights Apartments, H.No.3-6-771 to 776, Street No.14, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad - 500 029) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Unit 7 Outer Ring Road, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. 3 The Project Director, Outer Ring Road Project (HUDA), Tarnaka, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act vide R.R. No.47 Hyderabad dated 30.6.2004 issued by the first respondent including the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act vide Gazette notification RR No.125 Hyderabad dated 23.7.2007 and consequential notifications are illegal and void and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 AND 3: Sri Y. Ravindra, S.C. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.17450 of 2007 ORDER: Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.Ravindra, Learned Standing Counsel for HUDA would agree that the subject matter of this writ petition is covered by the order of this Court in W.P.Nos.13863, 14247 and 14478 of 2005, dated 23.7.2008. This writ petition shall also be allowed in terms of the aforesaid order and the impugned notification is quashed to the extent of the petitioners. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J Date: 18th February, 2009 pnb