THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11913 of 2007 July 02, 2010 Between: Epur Venku Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy And another … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11913 of 2007 ORDER: Two petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from the land admeasuring Acs.0.71 comprising in S.Nos.206, 209 and 210 situated at Epur 1B (Pentapalem) Village of Muthukuru Mandal in Nellore District as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential direction in that regard. The case of petitioners is that they are the owners of subject land, which forms part of larger extent admeasuring Acs.3.82 of wetland in survey Nos.206 and 210, and Acs.0.07 in survey No.209. It appears, the land admeasuring an extent of Acs.3.18 of first petitioner was acquired for widening Nakkalakalava drain (the drain, for brevity) in 1993 under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, for short) and compensation was paid. It is alleged that fourth respondent widened the drain and in that process deprived the petitioners of subject land without initiating LA proceedings. It is their further case that when they made representation, third respondent addressed fourth respondent to send requisition for initiating proceedings under the LA Act. The Superintending Engineer, Nellore, also addressed Engineer-in-Chief, Hyderabad, for sanctioning Rs.3,20,000/- towards compensation payable to owners of land, which was utilized for widening the drain. In spite of the same, as no steps were taken, the present writ petition is filed. The counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent admitting the petitioners case. It is also stated that after many reminders, fourth respondent did not send revised requisition for the lands and that as and when the request is received from fourth respondent, the proceedings under LA Act would be initiated. After hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusing the pleadings, this Court is convinced that there is some inaction on the part of fourth respondent and the Revenue authorities have acted promptly. As the matter has been pending for the last ten years, at least now fourth respondent may send required requisition proposals to third respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, third respondent shall get the notifications under Section 4(1) of LA Act and declarations under Section 6 of LA Act issued immediately and complete the entire proceedings within a period of four months thereafter. This Court also observed that any deviation would be violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 02, 2010 YS