IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9083 of 2007 Between: 1 M/s. Shafali Projects Pvt., Ltd., Having its Office at 3rd Floor 3-6- 102/A/BC, Shahid Yar Jung Lane, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, rep byits Director, Sri N. Praveen Reddy S/o N. Minna Reddy. 2 Abdul Subur Khan S/o Abdul Rasheed Khan, r/o H. No. 3/6/119, himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretarait, Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabad URban Development Authority, rep byits Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Police Lines, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 3 The Project Director and Special Collector (LA) ORR Project, HUDA COmplex, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. 4 The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Unit No. VII Outer Ring Road, HUDA Complex, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. .....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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No. ORR No. 59, No. D/ORR/119 of 2005 dated 20-4-2006 relating to the acquisition of the land of the petitioners in Sy. No. 298 admeasuring ac. 2.35 guntas situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the outer ring road purposes is arbitral, illegal and consequently set a side the notification issued. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.MADHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 9083 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. ORR No. 59, No.D/ORR/119 of 2005 dated 20.4.2006 relating to the acquisition of land of the petitioners in S.No. 298 admeasuring Ac.2-35 guntas, situated at Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District for the outer ring road purposes, as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-35 guntas in S.No. 298 of Puppalaguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, in the year 2004, from the lawful owner. While so, a Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the respondents proposing to acquire the subject lands for the purpose of laying outer ring road. The grievance of the petitioners is that neither the names of the petitioners are reflected in Sec. 4(1) Notification nor any notice under Section Sec.5-A of the Act has been served on them or their names are reflected in Sec. 6 Notification. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the true owners and possessors of the subject lands and, as their names are not reflected in the Notification issued by the respondents, it must be deemed that any attempt made by the respondents to take over the lands of the petitioners is arbitrary, illegal and without following the due process of law. Whereas, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the names as available in the revenue records are reflected in Sec. 4(1) Notification as well as in Sec. 6 Notification. Further, it is an admitted case of the petitioners that their names are reflected in the revenue records after the land acquisition proceedings are initiated and the mutation of the lands was taken only in the year 2005. Under those circumstances, the question of reflecting the names of the petitioner in Sections 4(1) and 6 Notifications or issuing Sec.5-A enquiry notice, does not arise. Apart from that, the issue as to acquisition of land in Puppalaguda village for laying outer ring road was subject matter of W.P. Nos. 22809 of 2006 and Batch before a Division Bench of this Court, and the said Batch was disposed of by the Division Bench on 1.10.20007, wherein all such contentions as raised by the petitioners herein are fully discussed and rejected. Further, though several other contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the fact that the names of the petitioners are mutated in the revenue records only after the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 22809 of 2006 and Batch, dated 1.10.2007, they need not be gone into in this writ petition. It is always open for the petitioners to approach the concerned Land Acquisition Officer and work out the remedies as available to them under the law for the purpose of payment of compensation or seeking reference under Sections 18 or 30 of the Act, if any dispute had arisen in view of any counter claims made before the Land Acquisition Officer. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from making an appropriate representation before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer seeking appropriate compensation or reference under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, this will not preclude the petitioner from claiming the benefits of the rehabilitation scheme envisaged under G.O.Ms.No. 14 dated 18.12.2006. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 10-02-2009. MVB.