THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8 of 2008 Date: 15.02.2008 Between: Nalluri Babu Rao … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Krishna and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the objections of the petitioner filed in pursuance of notice, dated 28.11.2007 issued under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner and comprised in Survey No.101 of Koduru Village, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri B.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that though he filed objections in response to the notice issued under Section 5A of the Act, the same were not disposed of and no order has been passed. The grievance of the petitioner is that without disposal of the said objections, the respondents have been seeking to dispossess him from the land. The Assistant Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District, filed counter affidavit, in which it is averred that the Assistant Collector enquired into the objections of the petitioner and submitted a report to the District Collector, Krishna for taking a decision on the said objections; that the latter vide his proceedings, dated 31.12.2007 rejected the said objections and the same were communicated to the petitioner by registered post under acknowledgement due on 31.12.2007 itself. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the said averments contained in the counter affidavit. I am, therefore, convinced that the petitioner having received the order from respondent No.1 failed to disclose the same in his affidavit and filed the present writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for two reasons namely, that the petitioner failed to disclose a material fact and he also failed to question the order of respondent No.1 whereby his objections were rejected. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni