IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15755 of 2007 Between: G.Srinivasa rao S/o.Gopala Rao R/o. Old Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman, Police Lines, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 3 Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban development Authority, Police Lines, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 4 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notifications Nos. G2/3244/2004 dated 19.6.2004 under Section 4(1) of the L.A Act and G1/3245/2004 dated 23.7.2005 U/s. 6 of the L.A. Act in respect of land bearing Sy.No.161/A/AA admeasuring 17 guntas situated at Injapur village and Gram Panchayat, Hayathnagar, Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District held by the petitioner as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by setting aside the notifications and pass such order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION MR. M. SURENDER RAO The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15755 OF 2007 ORDER: Learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Gajjela Narasimha Reddy and others v. Collector, Ranga Reddy District and another[1]. Therefore, this writ petition is also liable to be allowed in terms of the said judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notifications are quashed to the extent of the land belonging to the petitioner. The respondents, however, are not precluded from initiating acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 11th February, 2009. IBL [1] 2008 (5) ALD 302