IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31616 of 2011 Between: T. Neelakanta & others. … Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO Anantapur, Anantapur District & others, … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31616 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation or allotting alternative site in lieu of the land utilized by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in pursuance of the master plan for the purpose of Central Park, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners pleaded that during the life time of their father, the respondents have issued notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) for acquiring the land for Central Park near RTC bus stand, Anantapur, that the property of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.176/3 is not included in the said notiﬁcation, but, however, the master plan shows that Sy.No.176/3 was acquired. It is the case of the petitioners that while there is no acquisition of their property, however, as the same is included in the master plan, the respondents have utilized the same without paying compensation or providing them with alternative land. Going by the pleadings of the petitioners, it appears the cause of action has arisen even during the lifetime of their father. The pleadings are too vague as to whether the land claimed by them was actually acquired or was merely included in the master plan. The petitioners have not made any representation to the respondents before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ of Mandamus. The law is well settled that before seeking Mandamus, the aggrieved persons have to ﬁrst approach the respondents demanding justice (see Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury vs. State of West Bengal[1] and Amrit Lal Berry, K.N.Kapur vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi[2]). In view of this settled legal position and as the petitioners failed to issue any such notice to the respondents, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to them to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 for redressal of their grievance. If the petitioners fail to get any relief on such representation, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39230/2011 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.11.2011 ES [1] AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] AIR 1975 SC 538