Pallem Subba Rami Reddy, v. Govt.Of A.P., Rep.By Its Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 9423 OF 2006 O R D E R:

The petitioners claim that they are the owners and possessors of various structures in various survey numbers of Bandarupally Village, Vontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District. While so, the government issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the lands as well as the structures standing thereon situated at Bandarupally Village for the purpose of construction of Somasila Project. In the said notification, many structures have not been included. Hence, the 3rd respondent issued Addendum dated 11.11.2003 bringing in its fold several other structures which were not notified in the original notification. However, the said Addendum has not included the structures belonging to the petitioners.

Hence, they filed representations before the 2nd respondent District Collector, Kadapa, who referred the matter to the 3rd respondent Special Collector, Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore at Rajampet, who, in turn, directed the 4th respondent Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project to submit a detailed report thereon. The 4th respondent, vide letter dated 24.05.2005, sent a detailed report stating that the structures belonging to the petitioners are more than three year old. Subsequently, pursuant to the notification dated 18.09.2002, the Award was also passed, but however, the respondents have not considered the representations of the petitioners and granted any compensation to them. Hence, this Writ Petition.

This Court, by its order dated 23.06.2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 11927 of 2006, granted interim direction to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate steps on the report of the 4th respondent and issue appropriate proceedings for acquisition of the structures of the petitioners.

Today, when queried, the learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to report the developments that have taken place postorder dated 23.06.2006. In that view of the matter, since the interim relief granted by this Court is identical to the one which has been sought for in the main Writ Petition, this Court is of the opinion that no fresh order need be passed in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands closed, directing that the interim order dated 23.06.2006 be treated as the final order in this Writ Petition. It is, however, made clear that if any grievance arises from out of the said interim order, the petitioners are at liberty to seek redressal of the same in an appropriate forum, subject to limitation. No costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall also stand closed.

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 17th September 2016 ksld