IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.4786 of 2008 Between: Sai Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited, Hyderabad, rep by its Dy.General Manager (Secretarial & Corporate Affairs) Mr. S.E.Rao,Plot No6, H.No.6-3-569/1/4, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Officer of the District Collectorate, Kurnool. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool Dist., .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned proceedings passed in Rc.No.L.78/07 dated 08-11-2007 as being illegal, void abinitio and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the Petitioner land admeasuring Acrs.11.70 cents in Sy.No.102/A1,1002-A/2,1007/a,1007/2, situated at Ayyaluru Village,Nandyala Mandal, Kurnool Dist. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.4786 of 2008 O R D E R The petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition with the following prayer: “Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned proceedings passed in Rc.No.L.78/07 dated 08-11-2007 as being illegal, void abinitio and consequently direct the respondents not to acquire the Petitioner land admeasuring Acrs.11.70 cents in Sy.No.102/A1,1002- A/2,1007/a,1007/2, situated at Ayyaluru Village,Nandyala Mandal, Kurnool Dist.” Heard both the counsel. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities are doing everything behind its back and similarly they may dispossess it without following due process under law. However, a perusal of the draft declaration published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) dated 08.11.2007, makes it clear that the possession of the land in question will be taken after expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act. In the light of the said recitals in the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it may be dispossessed at any time is only an apprehension, and therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to strictly adhere to their own statement i.e. taking possession of the land in question after the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach this Court or any other Court for redressal of its grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 7th MARCH, 2008 PGS To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.4786 of 2008 7th MARCH, 2008