IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18602 of 2000 Between: 1 Koneru Venkateswara Rao S/o. Suryanarayana R/o. Nizamabad, A.P. 2 Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Anjaiah R/o. Gunadala Village, Vijayawada Urban Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer of V.G.T.M.Urban Development Authority Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 V.G.T.M. Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Vice Chairman, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.G.PEDDA BABU Counsel for the Respondents:---- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare notiﬁcation dated 01-09-1998 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and declaration dated 01-06-2000 made under Section 6 of the Act as illegal and arbitrary. The main grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is against the procedure that was being followed by the respondents in acquiring the land without keeping suﬃcient money in reserve for being paid in pursuance of the awards to be made. On 03-08-2001, this Court passed the following order in WVMP No.3339 of 2000. “In the counter ﬁled by the second respondent, it is clearly stated that possession of the land will be taken only after passing the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and after compensation amount is paid as prescribed under the Act. In view of the same, it is open for the authorities to take possession of the property only after award is passed and compensation amount is made available for payment as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The WVMP is accordingly ordered.” The above reproduced order redressed the petitioners’ grievance, if any. Sri G.Pedda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, has not disputed this position. In view of the same, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th November, 2008 vrn