IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26786 of 2000 Between: M.Peda Mannaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Guntur and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to issue notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the petitioner’s land in Survey Nos.1020-A and 1012/3 of Jangamaheswara Puram Village, Durgi Mandal, Guntur District. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The petitioner claimed that out of land admeasuring Ac.1.17 cents in the above mentioned survey numbers belonging to him, Ac.1.00 of land was forcibly utilized by the respondents for laying a road in the year 1982 and that though he made a number of representations and got issued a legal notice, they have not either paid the compensation nor responded to the same. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3 on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4, it is stated that the land admeasuring Acs.2.37 cents was acquired by the Roads and Buildings Department for laying the road; that the land falling in Survey No.1020-A belongs to the persons other than the petitioner and no land belonging to the petitioner in the said survey number was acquired for the said purpose and that in respect of the land of the petitioner comprised in Survey No.1012/3, for which he is claiming compensation, the road laid by the department does not pass through any part of it and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. Though this counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled in the year 2003, no reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the averments contained therein. The petitioner has not ﬁled any material except legal notice in support of his contention that any part of the land belonging to the petitioner in the above two survey numbers was acquired by the respondents for laying the road. Therefore, the petitioner failed to make out a case for granting any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.34019 of 2000 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th AUGUST, 2008. kvni