THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27225 OF 2011 Dated: 30.09.2011 Between : Kambala Kanaka Raju and 15 others … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and 9 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 27225 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners herein claim to be in possession of the agricultural lands situated in Sy.Nos.143, 142/1, 157/1, 140/1, 141/1, 146, 158/2, 199, 508/1, 110, 196 & 198 of Ponnada Village and Ramanakkapeta Villages of U. Kotapalli Mandal, East Godavari District. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the alleged action of the respondents 2 to 5 and 8 to 10 in interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the above said lands and attempting to cut the trees and standing crops without following due process of law. Admittedly the lands in question were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide Section 4 (1) Notification, dated 3.1.2006 for formation of a Special Economic Zone. It is stated that the award enquiry is in progress and that the petitioners are continuing in possession of the lands as of today. It is alleged that the respondent No.8 for whose benefit the land has been acquired, with the help of the police has been attempting to cut the fruit-bearing trees and standing crops existing on the land in question and when the petitioners resisted, criminal complaints have been registered against them. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the validity of the acquisition of the lands in question was questioned in W.P.Nos.19682 and 22321 of 2008. After hearing all the parties concerned, this Court dismissed the said writ petitions by order dated 16.09.2010. It was also recorded by this Court in the said order that the possession of the land was handed over to the respondent No.8 herein. Therefore the allegation that the respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioners without following due process of law is unfounded and cannot be accepted. So far as the allegation that no compensation is paid for the trees and standing crop is concerned, if aggrieved it is for the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy as available under the Land Acquisition Act by seeking reference to the Civil Court. Viewed from any angle, the interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.09.2011 Ivd