IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14720 of 2008 Between: Shoukatunnisa @ Shah Noor Sultana … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Roads & Buildings Dept., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. Krishna Gahaloth for Sri Vedula Venkataramana Counsel for respondents 1,3&4: GP for Roads & Buildings Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Y. Ravinder Counsel for respondents 5&6: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14720 of 2008 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trespassing and highhandedly destroying the fruit bearing trees and utilizing the land of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.59 of Mamidipalli Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for road widening without making payment of compensation or allotting alternative land to the petitioner, as illegal. Respondents Nos.2 and 6 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.6, it is inter alia stated that the extent of Ac.20.34 guntas situated in various survey numbers of Mamidipally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was acquired for development of P7 road from Mailardevpally to Srisailam Road via Jalpally and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), award under Section 11(1) was passed on 05.10.2007 and possession of the land was handed over to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on 08.10.2007. It is further stated that as against Ac.0.04 guntas of land, which was acquired, claims for larger extents of land have been received, the dispute has been referred to the District Court, Ranga Reddy District under Section 30 of the Act while depositing the compensation amount under Section 31 of the Act. Having regard to the above fact, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and hence, the same is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, pending before the competent civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.19032 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.07.2011 ES