HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26321 of 2011 Date: 15.11.2011 Between: Konam Anasuya ..... Petitioner AND National Highway Authorities of India, Reptd by its Project Director, Hyderabad And two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri S.S.Varma Standing Counsel for National Highways Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantial relief: - “………..to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in proceeding with laying of road through the house of the petitioner bearing H.No.6-122, situated at Kattnagur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, without passing award and paying the compensation and without following the procedure prescribed under National Highways Act as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to pass the award and pay the compensation in accordance with valuation report of the approved Engineers, dated 15.09.2010, for acquiring the house.” In the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda-respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated as under: - “In reply to paras 7 and 11 of the affidavit, it is submitted that action for taking possession will be taken up only after paying compensation to the petitioner and her house will not be demolished without paying compensation.” Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents may be directed to pay proper compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to receive for the structures. Since the compensation has not yet been determined and respondent No.2 has undertaken to pay the compensation before demolishing the petitioner’s house, the cause of action on which the present Writ Petition is filed ceases to exist. If the compensation fixed by the respondents is not adequate, the petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy before the competent forum. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.32491 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief and W.V.M.P.No.4050 of 2011 filed by the respondents are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th November 2011 DR