COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2. Common facts and common issues are involved in the present batch of Writ Petitions. Therefore, for the purpose of narration of facts, the facts mentioned in W.P.No.27043 of 2014 are referred to in this Order.

3. The Prayer in Writ Petition No.27043 of 2014 is as follows:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased, to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly 3^rd respondent in directing the petitioner to vacate and handover the possession of land of 0.54 Acres in Sy. No. 39/10 of Mangampet Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Y.S.R.District vide notice under Ref. No. APMDC/LA/StructuresNotice/ dated 10.12.2013 though award is dated 04.09.2002 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against statutory provisions including Sec 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 and consequently set- aside the notice issued by the 3^rd respondent under Ref. No. APMDC/LA/Structures/Notice/ dated 10.12.2013 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The above Prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has received the Impugned Notice issued by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (APMDC) (Respondent No.1), bearing Ref. No. APMDC/LA/Structures/Notice dated 10.12.2013 (Ex.P.1). The Writ Petitioners in the other Writ Petitions have also received similar Notices, which have been challenged in the present batch of Writ Petitions.

Facts in Writ Petition No.27043 of 2014:-

5. The facts that emerge in W.P.No.27043 of 2014 are that the father of the Writ Petitioner possessed patta land of an extent of Ac.0.54 cents in Sy. No. 39/10 of Mangampet Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Y.S.R. District; that the father of the Writ Petitioner also possessed a house in the same location; that at the behest of Respondent No.1, the Land Acquisition Officer (Respondent No. 2) has initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 2003; that the land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of mining ‘barytes’ by Respondent No.1; that an extent of Ac.0.54 cents and the house belonging to the father of the Writ Petitioner were taken over by Respondent No.2 in the year 2012 itself; that on 04.09.2002, Award No.H.88/2001 was passed, thereby fixing compensation at the rate of Rs.450 per each cent, which was paid to the father of the Writ Petitioner; that the father of the Writ Petitioner had received the compensation under protest; that despite the fact that the land was taken long ago, the Writ Petitioner would contend that he and the other Writ Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions were never dispossessed of the land and continued to carry on agricultural activities in the acquired land; and that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.27043 of 2014 would contend that he has been raising paddy crop in the subject land.

6. The facts in this Writ Petition would further indicate that Respondent Nos.1 and 3 issued the Impugned Notice bearing Ref. No. APMDC/LA/Structures/Notice/ dated 10.12.2013 (Ex.P.1), directing the Writ Petitioners to vacate the site on or before July 2014; that since no action was taken from the date of issuance of the Impugned Notice on 10.12.2013 till July 2014, the Writ Petitioners continued to enjoy the subject land; and that in the month of August 2014, when Respondent Nos.1 and 3 insisted on handing over possession of the land, the Writ Petitioners had faced the threat of dispossession by police force. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions have approached this Court by filing the present batch of Writ Petitions.

7. Vide Orde