HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27365 OF 2007 Dated: 21-11-2011 Between: Mandigiri Yellappa S/o.Lakshmanna … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Mahaboobnagar and others … Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in paying compensation to the 4th respondent in respect of 390 Orange trees in Survey No.287 of Nagardoddi Village, Maldakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cause enquiry and award compensation to the petitioner. 2. An extent of Acs.6.35 guntas of land covered by survey No.287 situated within the limits of Nagardoddi village of Maldakal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, came under submergence under the balancing reservoir of Nagardoddi village. On the requisition sent by the Engineering Department, the respondents have notified the aforesaid extent of land. Draft notification and draft declaration were issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). As per the notification, the land of the petitioner and his wife, together for an extent of Acs.1.00 guntas was notified in which there were about 100 Orange trees, apart from other trees. The land of the 4th respondent to an extent of Acs.2-35 guntas was also acquired in which there were 390 Orange trees. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there were no trees in the land of the 4th respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 have notified 390 Orange trees, and under the guise of the notification issued by the respondents 1 to 3, the respondents 4 and 5 are interfering with the trees which exist in the remaining land of the petitioner. 4. A detailed counter – affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent – Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Jawahar Lift Irrigation Project, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter – affidavit that the land of the petitioner to an extent of 50 cents along with the land of his wife to an extent of 50 cents was notified and the petitioner was pad compensation for 100 Orange trees, 5 Mango trees, 4 Coconut trees and 6 Tamarind trees. With regard to the 4th respondent, it is stated that land to an extent of Acs.1.17.5 cents along with his brother’s share of another extent of Acs.1.17.5 cents, altogether Acs.2.35 cents came under acquisition and there were 390 Orange trees and they were notified. It is stated that accordingly, compensation amount for the notified land along with 390 trees was paid to the 4th respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the guise of the notification, the 5th respondent Contractor was taking steps to remove the trees, which exist in the remaining land of the petitioner. 6. The relief sought for in the writ petition is with regard to payment of compensation in respect of the trees, which existed in the land owned by the 4th respondent, which was acquired. Compensation is paid to the petitioner for the land and trees, which are notified in his land. There cannot be any grievance for the petitioner to question the compensation awarded to the 4th respondent for the trees, which exist and notified in the land belonging to the 4th respondent. Though it is alleged that under the guise of notification, the respondents are taking steps to remove the trees, which are existing in the remaining land of the petitioner in the same survey number, the same is a matter, which cannot be examined in this writ petition. If the respondents are trying to take steps for dispossessing the petitioner from his land, which is not notified, and trying to remove the trees, which are not the subject matter of the writ petition, it is always open to the petitioner to question the same before the appropriate Forum. But, the same is not a ground to question the compensation paid to the 4th respondent for the trees, which existed in the land belonging to the 4th respondent and notified for acquisition. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 21, 2011. KTL