IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 396 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/06/2007 in WP NO : 122 OF 1996 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Dharu Narsing Rao (died per L.Rs.) 2 D.Laxmamma, W/o D.Narsing Rao. 3 Hanumanth Rao, S/o D.Narasing Rao, 4 Madhusudhan Rao, S/o D.narasing Rao, All are r/o Nagampally Village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy District, A.P.,). ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad. 2 The R.D.O., Ranga Reddy East Division (Land Acquisition) Hyderabad. 3 The M.R.O., Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.122 of 1996 dated 21.6.2007, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioners. Acquisition to land to the extent of Ac.2.00 of land from S.No.306 situated at Village: Naganapally, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District had been challenged in the petition. The main contention urged before the learned Single Judge was that on an earlier occasion some land belonging to the petitioners had been acquired, and, therefore, their land could not have been acquired again. The learned Single Judge did not find substance in the said submission for the reason that the petitioners cannot succeed by such mere assertion unless it is established that notwithstanding availability of equally facilitative land, their land was subjected to acquisition again. Yet another submission made before the learned Single Judge was that non-publication of substance of Section 4(1) notification within 40 days from the date of gazette publication in the local newspaper vitiates the entire proceedings. This submission also did not find favour with the learned Single Judge on the ground that there was no pleading to that effect in the affidavit. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. The learned advocate has reiterated before us the very same submissions made before the learned Single Judge. We do not find any substance in the said submissions, more particularly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SANJEEVANAGAR MEDICAL AND HEALTH EMPLOYEES COOPERARIVE HOUSING SOCIEITY vs. MOHD. ABDUL WAHAB[1]. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that till today, no further proceedings have been taken by the government authorities. It appears that because of stay of all further proceedings granted by the learned Single Judge, it was not possible for the government authorities to do the needful for making payment of compensation. Now that we are inclined to dismiss the appeal and as a consequence thereof the stay granted by this Court would cease to exist, we are sure that the government authorities shall do the needful for payment of the compensation to the appellants at an early date. In the result, we find no substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 11th April, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J vtv [1] (1996) 3 600