THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 20115 OF 2011 Dated: 18.07.2011 Between: Dr. Mirza Nauman Baig ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 20115 OF 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of property bearing Municipal No. 11-6-874, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. By notification dated 07.07.2011 made under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, ‘the Act’) the land in question was sought to be acquired for a public purpose. The enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published on 07.07.2011 stating that in terms of Section 17 (1) of the Act, the possession of the land would be taken on expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9 (1) of the Act. The petitioner states that immediately thereafter on 08.07.2011, he made a representation requesting the respondents to allot alternate commercial property of ‘A’ category in the city or to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per square yard. Alleging that the respondents are attempting to take the possession of the land in question without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 08.07.2011, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner till the petitioner’s representation is considered in accordance with law. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 17 (1) of the Act provides that in cases of urgency, the Collector, on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9 (1) of the Act can take possession of any land needed for a public purpose. In the instant case, the power under Section 17 (1) of the Act, has admittedly been invoked. Hence, the possession can be taken on expiration of 15 days from the publication of Section 9 (1) notice and no mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to act contrary to law. So far as the petitioner’s representation dated 08.07.2011 is concerned, the respondents are bound to consider the same during the award enquiry. However, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the possession of the land in question shall not be taken unless and until his representation for compensation/alternate land is considered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, though the Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 08.07.2011 at appropriate stage following due process of law. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18.07.2011 Ivd