The court affirmed that only land officially acquired can grant compensation, upholding the documented extent of acquisition and the compensation paid.

ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in taking away land of petitioner along with borewell for construction of D3 Lift Laxmi Canal in the year 1997 admeasuring 1 acres 36 guntas in Survey No.471/1 of Bodepally Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District and paying compensation only for an extent of 36 guntas in the year 1998 and not paying any compensation for remaining extent of one acre and borewell situated in Survey No.471/1 of Bodepally Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, as arbitrary, illegal and as violative of Article 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents to pay compensation to the land of petitioner admeasuring 1 acre and borewell situated in Survey No.471/1 of Bodepally Village, Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of dispossession till the date of payment and pass ...”

2. Heard Mr. S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms. K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. K.Radha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue &Irrigation for respondents.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.36 guntas in Sy.No.471/1 situated at Bodepally Village, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is further submitted that an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.471/1 was acquired for digging of D3 Lift Laxmi Canal and compensation of Rs.54,148/- was paid. It is also submitted that entire land admeasuring Ac.1.36 guntas was dug, while digging, the existing bore well was lost and that he represented to respondent No.3 for payment of compensation for additional Ac.0.36 guntas of land. That he submitted representations to the Collector and other authorities. His son submitted old representation dated 03.04.1998 to District Collector, which was endorsed to respondent No.2 to enquire, submit a report and that till date, no action has been taken, in spite of his son approaching respondent No.3.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that petitioner is a pattadar of land admeasuring Ac.1.36 guntas in Sy.No.471/1 of Bodepally Village, Balkonda Mandal. That for acquisition of lands for excavation of D3 of 2^nd lift Laxmi Canal from Km.2.250 to Km.4.000 in the limits of Bodepally Village, an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.471/1 of land was requisitioned, out of total Ac.13.07 guntas of land for acquisition. Petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas was notified under Land Acquisition Act and objections were received from the petitioner. It is also submitted that when survey was conducted by the Executive Engineer, the existence of bore well was not included in their acquisition and as such, it was not notified. That a Draft Notification was issued in Gazette, dated 17.12.1997 and declaration is dated 18.12.1997. Vide Award No.4/1997-98, dated 31.03.1998, the compensation for the land of petitioner was fixed as Rs.54,148/- and the same was paid through cheque No.240951 (Page No.3 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.3), the same was acknowledged without any objections.

5. It is submitted that petitioner frequently filed representations for payment of compensation for the balance extent of land and to the bore well which was lost in the acquisition. It is further submitted that petitioner’s land notified was only Ac.0.36 guntas as per the req