IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17715 of 2008 Between: 1 Pokala Siddaiah S/o.Siddaiah R/o.Veerannapet village Cherial Revenue Mandal Warangal District 2 Pokala Sridhar S/o.Siddaiah R/o.Veerannapet village Cherial Revenue Mandal Warangal District 3 Pokala Srikanth S/o.Siddaiah R/o.Veerannapet village Cherial Revenue Mandal Warangal District 4 Mendu Vijaya Lakshmi @ Swaroopa W/o.Balaiah R/o.Ramachandrapuram Village Buchannapet revenue Mandal, Warangal District 5 Smt.Bakkoni Jaya Laxmi W/o.Rajaiah R/o.Aknoor village Cherial Revenue Mandal, Warangal District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by District Collector (Land Acquisition), Warangal District at Warangal 2 The Land Acquisition officer (Special Deputy collector) J.C.R.C.L.I.P., Hanmakonda, Warangal District 3 Kundarapu Siddaiah S/o.Late Siddaiah R/o.Veerannapet village Cherial Revenue Mandal, Warangal District ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY FOR MR K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to disburse compensation amount in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No. 737/B of Veerannapet Village, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District, without considering the claim petition made by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the claim petition made by the petitioners in respect of Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey No.737/B of Veerannapet Village, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District, is pending with respondent No.2 and that he has not so far passed any order. He stated that the petitioners apprehend that without considering their claim petition, respondent No.2 is likely to pass an award. In my considered view, the petitioners have not shown any basis for the above mentioned apprehension that respondent No.2 may not consider their claim before passing an award. Under Section 30 of the Act, it is the bounden duty of respondent No.2 to consider the claim of all the claimants before passing an award. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt that respondent No.2 would consider the claim of the petitioners before passing an award under Section 11 of the Act. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.23020 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th August, 2008 Note: Issue C.C in three days vrn