IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4481 of 2008 Between: Burhanudden Mosque Committee, Door No.10-546, Trunk Road,Kadapa, rep.by its President V.S.Nisar, S/o.V.S.A R/o. H.No.7/36, Chinakalabavi Street,Kadapa ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector,Kadapa 2 The Revenue Divisonal officer, Kadapa 3 The District Wakf officer,Kadapa 4 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Kadapa,Kadapa District 5 The Executive Engineer, R&B Kadapa 6 S.Beejan Bee W/o.Mahabub Shop No.10/985 Trunk Road,Kadapa 7 P.Sadiq Saheb Shop No.10/986,Trunk Road Kadapa .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or directionmore in the of mandamus declaring the action oftherespondents in including thenames of the 6thand 7th respondents as pattedars/Occupants of Shop No.10/985 and 10/986 in the Land Acquisition Notification No.G1/3343/2007 dated -1-2008 issued by the District Collector, Kadapa even though the said shops belongs tothe petitioner Mosque and the respondents6 and 7 are tenants of the shops is a s illegal,and consequently hold that the petitioner Mosque is entitled to receive the compensation amount for acquiring the shop Nos.10/985 and 10/986 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4481 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in including the names of 6th and 7th respondents as Occupants of Shop No.10/985 and 10/986 in the Land Acquisition Notification No.G1/3343/2007 issued by the District Collector, Kadapa as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, in pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings, the properties held by the petitioner Mosque along with shops in question were acquired for road widening purpose. According to the petitioner, the entire property belongs to petitioner Mosque and the respondents 6 and 7 are only tenants, but unfortunately their names were also included in the 4(1) notification and taking advantage of the same, the respondents 6 and 7 are claiming compensation to the extent of shops occupied by them. The dispute, if any, as to the ownership of Shop Nos.10/985 and 10/986 cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If there is any such dispute, it is always open for the respondents 1 and 2 to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for deciding as to the title and shares held by the parties. The respondents shall complete this exercise within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, no compensation shall be paid either to the petitioner or to respondents 6 and 7 to the extent of shops in question. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 19.1.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4481 of 2008 19.1.2009