IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 4301 of 2001 Between: Sangani Ramakrishna S/o Bhaskar Rao R/o Dumpalakodudibba, H/o Potumarru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Upputeru Sub Division Akiveedu, West Godavari District. 2 The Assistant Engineer Irrigation Department Upputeru Section-I, Akiveedu, West Godavari District. 3 Smt. Ponamanda Krishnamma W/o Venkateswarlu Dumpalakodudibba, H/o Potumarru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Ramade Punnaiah China Ramaswami Dumpalakodudibba, H/o Potumarru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. 5 V. Suryachander Rao S/o Pade Ramudu Dumpalakodudibba, H/o Potumarru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. ...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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent 1 & 2 in leasing out the lands belonging to the petitioner in R.S.No.433/2A of extent of Ac.0.75 cents situated at Dumpalakodudibba, Hamlet of Potumarru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District to third parties, including Respondent 3 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct them to regularise the possession of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 4301 of 2001 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 & 2 in leasing out the lands belonging to the petitioner in R.S.No.433/2A admeasuring Ac.0.75 cents situated at Dumpalakodudibba, Hamlet of Potumarru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District to third parties, including respondents 3 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct them to regularise the possession of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents in RS.No.433 of 2007 situated at Dumpalakodudibba, Hamlet of Potumarru, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired by the Government for widening Upputeru in the year 1980-82, and suitable compensation was paid to the petitioner. Inasmuch as that piece of land was not put to use by the Government for the purpose for which it is acquired, the petitioner developed the land and started cultivating the fish culture and he is paying necessary tax to the Government. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondent is contemplating to the lease the land to the unofficial respondents. No interim order has been granted by this Court and no counter has been filed by the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have any right over the land as it was already acquired by the Government. However, the same could not be put in use by the Government for the purpose for which it is acquired. It appears that he reentered into the said land and started fish culture with the knowledge of the official respondents who have not taken any action against the petitioner as they impliedly permitted him to cultivate the fish culture in the disputed piece of land. While so, the official respondents have contemplated to give the piece of land to third parties, by way of lease, which is questioned in this writ petition on the ground that without considering the claim of the petitioner in the representation made by him, the third parties are being considered. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction as under:- “The respondents are directed to consider the representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.” With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:28.4.2009 mrb