IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9940 of 2004 Between: M.Venkata Reddy S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy R/o.H.No.4-13-47, 1st Line Naidupet, Amarvathi Road Guntur-522 007. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Guntur District Guntur. 4 The Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for acquiring an extent of 23 cents in Survey Nos.465, 461/1 and 466/B2 of Tumulur Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that out of an extent of Ac.2.43 cents, which was claimed to be a compact block in the above mentioned survey numbers, an extent of Ac.2.20 cents was acquired under the provisions of the Act by the respondents. On the ground of severance, the petitioner made representations for initiating land acquisition proceedings in respect of the balance extent of 23 cents. The petitioner also got the reference made under Section 18 of the Act in respect of the land acquired, which was disposed of by the competent civil Court. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though an extent of 23 cents was rendered useless on account of the respondents acquiring the substantial portion of the compact block, the respondents have not initiated proceedings under the Act for payment of compensation. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.4 filed a counter- affidavit, in which, it is inter alia admitted that the respondents have acquired the land of an extent of Ac.2.20 cents pertaining to the petitioner in Survey No.465. It is further stated that in response to representation, dated 01.03.1999 filed by the petitioner, respondent No.4 summoned the petitioner to give evidence and produce necessary documents on 12.04.1999 at 11.00 a.m., but he failed to avail the said opportunity. It is further stated that the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue Department), Hyderabad on receiving a representation from the petitioner, called for a detailed report from the District Collector, Guntur and such a report was sent by the predecessor of respondent No.4 on 29.08.2001 and that the Collector in turn submitted his report to the higher authorities. In view of the fact that the respondents considered the representation filed by the petitioner and submitted a report to the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue Department), Hyderabad, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case. Since a report has already been submitted to the Principal Secretary to Government, he is directed to consider the report said to have been submitted by the District Collector based on report, dated 29.08.2001 of respondent No.4 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.12645 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th JUNE, 2008. kvni