IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17352 of 2005 Between: 1 Sala Rama Sankara Janardhana Rao, s/o Seetharama Swamy, R/o Kosagangaregulavalasa Village, Komarada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2 Sala Lakshmi Bapamma, w/o Seetharama Swamy, R/o Kosagangaregulavalasa Village, Komarada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Vizianagram, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Convenor, Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. 3 The Chief Engineer, Medium Irrigation Department, Hyderabad. 4 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Medium Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5 The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Circle, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for Respondents.1 & 2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for Respondents 3 to 5:GP FOR INDUSTRIES The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry and declare the lands, belonging to the petitioners and acquired, as wet lands and pay compensation in terms of representations dated 24-11-2003 and 20-01-2005. The grievance, in short, of the petitioners is that while acquiring their lands, for the purpose of an irrigation channel, the respondents have been treating the lands as dry lands and that their representations dated 24-11-2003 and 20-01-2005 are not receiving attention they deserve. In the separate counter-affidavits filed by respondents 1, 2 and 5 respectively, they have taken the stand that while all other land owners gave their consent for passing an Award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners have not given their consent and that accordingly, notices under Section 11(1) of the Act were issued for holding an Award enquiry and that both the petitioners attended the enquiry and gave their statements. It is further stated that after considering their statements and following the prescribed norms, Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed and thereafter, notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were sent for service to the petitioners to receive compensation before 10-08-2005, that as the petitioners refused to receive the notices, they were served by substituted service by way of affixing the notices on the doors of their houses in the presence of Panchayat Secretary and Village Talayari of the Village on 08-08-2005. It is further stated that another notice was issued under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition (Negotiations Committee) Rules, 1992 read with Section 31(1) of the Act for payment of compensation informing the petitioners that a last chance was being given for the petitioners to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer on 12-08-2005 and that possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01-08-2005, that as both the petitioners refused to receive the notices, the same were affixed on the doors of their houses on 11-08-2005 and that an amount of Rs.1,19,942/- for an extent of Acs.2.31 cents of petitioner No.2 and Rs.89,372/- for an extent of Ac.1.63 cents of petitioner No.1 were deposited at the Sub-Treasury, Parvathipuram through challan Nos. 3691 and 3692 dated 30-02-2005 and the said fact was informed to the petitioners vide letter dated 30-08- 2005. With respect to the claim of the petitioners for reclassification of their lands, it is stated that there is no provision to change the classification from dry to wet. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the Award with respect to the quantum of compensation, they have a statutory right under Section 18 of the Act for seeking reference of the dispute to civil Court. The scope of Section 18 of the Act is wide enough to comprehend the dispute pertaining to the nature of the land and its classification. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to give any direction to the respondents to change the classification while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners continue to assert their claim for reclassification, the only appropriate remedy available to them is to seek reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act, subject to their satisfying the requirements of the said provision. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 05-08-2005 is vacated, WPMP No.22089 of 2005 is dismissed and WVMP No.2811 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 26th June, 2008 vrn