IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26506 of 2011 Between: Vuluva Sunkanna and others. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.V. Raghuveer Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26506 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their lands in Sy.Nos.120/1 and 120/2 of Alamkonda Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District without following due process of law as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of various extents of land in Sy.Nos.120/1 and 120/2 of Alamkonda Village. They have pleaded that in the year 2007 respondent No.2 acquired a part of their land for the purpose of Handri Neeva Sujala Sravanthi project and that the remaining part of the land is continued to be in their possession. It is also their pleaded case that while taking over their land, the respondents have paid small amounts of compensation and that recently respondent No.3 started construction of a compound wall around their remaining land. The petitioners alleged that they have approached respondent No.2 by insisting that unless their land is acquired by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and compensation is paid, the same shall not be acquired. As respondent No.3 sought to proceed with the construction, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer (HNSS), Unit IV, Kurnool, respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the land admeasuring Ac.10.34 cents in Sy.Nos.120/1A, 120/2A, 120/1B, 120/2B and 120/3, which is the Government land, is in possession and enjoyment of various persons as shown in the table given in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, that notices for resumption of the Government land were issued on 30.04.2007 and 03.09.2007 to all the enjoyers informing them that the land in their occupation is needed for HNSS Main Canal and Pumping Station No.6 and that they shall produce their DKT pattas, if they have any claim for compensation. It is further stated that all enjoyers have attended the enquiry, produced the relevant documents and agreed for receiving the ex gratia amount and that accordingly those lands were resumed vide proceedings dated 16.05.2005 and 11.09.2007 and handed over to the requisition department on 26.05.2007 and 18.09.2007. It is further stated that ex gratia amount was paid to all the enjoyers except petitioner No.1, as he did not come forward to receive the same and hence, the same was kept in revenue deposit. The details of amount of compensation and payments have been given in page 6 of the counter affidavit. It is further stated that petitioner No.7 is neither an enjoyer nor having any right in the land resumed and that the requisition department might have handed over the land to respondent No.2 for formation of pumping station No.6. On the above premises, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have stated that the petitioners have no manner of right to claim the land having received the ex gratia amount. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that on 07.11.2009 possession was delivered and sub-station was constructed and the same was commissioned on 02.10.2011. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the abovementioned facts. Even though the petitioners have asserted that their lands are private lands, no documents in support thereof have been filed. On the contrary, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have given the details of the Government land, which is in occupation of the petitioners, passing of the resumption orders and receiving of ex gratia amount by the petitioners in lieu of the land taken over for the purpose of HNSS works. If the petitioners were really aggrieved by taking over of land in the year 2007, they ought to have challenged the said action at that time. Having allowed the land to be taken possession by receiving ex gratia, it is not permissible for them to raise a dispute for the first time at this stage. Respondent No.3 sought to utilize a part of the land for execution of the works. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a part of the land, which was purported to handover to respondent No.3, his clients have raised paddy crop and that the same will be ripe for harvest in another 40 days. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that they have no instructions on this aspect. If the standing paddy crop is in existence, as claimed by the petitioners, respondent No.3 shall permit them to harvest the same. This direction shall not be understood as this Court authorizing the petitioners to raise further crop or to interfere with the possession of respondent No.3, if the standing crop does not exist on ground. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and hence, the same is dismissed, subject to the direction given hereinabove. As a sequel, interim order, dated 21.09.2011, is vacated and WPMP.No.32704 of 2011 is dismissed and WVMP.Nos.4085 and 4120 of 2011 are disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.12.2011 ES