The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27484 of 2010 Date: 21st November, 2011 Between: Ralapalli Pothanna ..... Petitioner and 1.The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) AVR Handri Neeva Sujala Sravanti (HNSS), Unit II, Anantapur District and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Maheswara Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.Dhulipalla V.A.S. for Sri Ravi Prasad The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who feels aggrieved by the proposal of respondent No.1 to make payment of compensation in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4-84 cents comprised in Survey Nos.813-2B and 813-3B of Goridindla Village, Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District, filed the present Writ Petition for a direction to respondent No.1 to conduct proper enquiry into the entitlement of the persons, among the petitioner and respondent No.2, to receive the same. The petitioner averred that he caused the legal notices issued on 30-03-2010 and 27-10-2010 to respondent No.1 but to of no avail. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that the claim of the petitioner was examined with reference to the land in Survey No.813- 2B and that having examined the revenue record furnished by the Tahsildar, Atmakur, proposals were submitted to the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore, on 21-02-2011 and 14-03-2011, for sanction of exgratia in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of Ac.4-50 cents out of Ac.4-84 cents in Survey No.813-2B and in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac.2-20 cents out of Ac.4- 89 cents in Survey No.813-3B. It is further stated that the Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, has approved the proposals and accordingly cheques were prepared but payment was not made to both the parties in view of the pendency of this Writ Petition. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, representing respondent No.1, stated that even though the claim of the petitioner was examined, no order has been passed rejecting the same. In my opinion, when the claim is made through legal notices, respondent No.1 is bound to specify his stand with reference to the same, so that the petitioner can avail appropriate remedy in the event he feels aggrieved by such stand. Failure of respondent No.1 to pass an order indicating the reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s claim will deny the petitioner of the opportunity to question the decision of respondent No.1. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioner, submitted through legal notices, and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till a decision is taken, respondent No.1 shall not disburse compensation. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, interim Order, dated 03-11-2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.35090 of 2010 and WVMP.No.4016 of 2011 are disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 21st November, 2011 LUR