IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16022 of 2010 Between: Chakali Gundamma and others. … Petitioners And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16022 of 2010 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners, whose lands were acquired under Priyadarshini Jurala Project, is that while acquiring the extent of Ac.9.30 guntas of land in Sy.No.33, the respondents have excluded 889 Pomegranate plants, 1 well and 2 pipelines situated in the said survey number. In support of their plea the petitioners have placed reliance on inspection report, dated 23.02.1995, of the Special Deputy Collector (LA) Unit, P.J.P., Gadwal. In the counter affidavit, the authenticity of the said report, dated 23.02.1995, is not disputed. It is pleaded that the petitioners have sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that in the reference proceedings, they have not made a claim for the abovementioned purported missed items. Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that as Section 18 reference was only with respect to enhancement of compensation for the notified properties, no claim in respect of the missed trees and structures was made. He placed reliance on the orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.12879 of 2005, 2846 of 2002 and 11879 of 2008 and submitted that following the directions given by this Court therein, the respondents have passed supplementary Award Nos.23 of 2007, 1 of 2008 and 19 of 2009. The above submissions of the learned counsel are not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. As the authenticity of inspection report, dated 23.02.1995, referred to above, has not been disputed and following the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.12879 of 2005, 2846 of 2002 and 11879 of 2008, which resulted in passing of supplementary awards, I find that the petitioners also deserve the same relief as was granted in the Writ Petitions, referred to above. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to pass a supplementary award by including 889 Pomegranate plants, 1 well and 2 pipelines belonging to the petitioners and which were admitted to exist in Sy.No.33, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, WPMP.No.20153 of 2010 is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.12.2011 ES