ORDER : 1. Chinamatla Venkata Subbamma and 6 others filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not paying the compensation/ex gratia to the petitioners for the land acquired by the respondents for Somasila Project Y.S.R.Kadapa District is illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct the respondents to take steps to implement the memo of respondent No.1 dated 23.01.2020 for payment of compensation to the land situated in Rangampally village, Atluru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District in Sy.No.1/1 an extent of Ac.2.02 cents belongs to petitioner No.1, Sy.No.4/1 an extent of Ac.1.82 cents belongs to petitioner No.2, Sy.No.29/1 an extent of Ac.0.41 belongs to petitioner No.3, Sy.No.29/2 an extent of Ac.0.65 cents belongs to petitioner No.4, Sy.No.29/3 an extent of Ac.0.38 cents belongs to petitioner No.5, Sy.No.29/4 an extent of Ac.1.10 cents and Sy.No.29/5 an extent of Ac.0.26 cents belongs to petitioner No.6, Sy.No.29/6(A) an extent of Ac.1.09 cents belongs to petitioner No.7 and also consider the representation dated 16.09.2019 in the interest of justice. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioners is that Rangampally village of Atlur Mandal is one among the sub-merged villages under foreshore water of Somasila Project. The petitioners own land in the said village. The details of the land are shown in the table hereunder: Petitioner No. Sy. No. Extent in Ac. & cents 1 1/1 2.02 2 4/1 1.82 3 29/1 0.41 4 29/2 0.65 5 29/3 0.38 6 29/4 29/5 1.10 & 0.26 7 29/6(A) 1.09 3. It is further contended that the Rangampalli Village of Atloor Mandal is located on the left bank of Sagileru River which confluence into Pennar river near Malinenipatnam village on the downstream side of about 3 kilometers from Rangampalli Village. The said village exist between +315' and +330' contour of Somasila Dam, due to which the village get submerged in the back water of the Reservoir, if water is stored up to FRL. Further the land and houses in the village were already acquired previously as per the FRL 330’ contour survey except the land of the petitioners. 4. The said village exist between +315' and +330' contour of Somasila Dam, due to which the village get submerged in the back water of the Reservoir, if water is stored up to FRL. Further the land and houses in the village were already acquired previously as per the FRL 330’ contour survey except the land of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners are making representation to the respondents since long time i.e. 02.01.2011 with a request to acquire the land of the petitioners as the major part of land in the village was already acquired in the year 1992 itself and passed Awards for payment of compensation to the owners of the land; that the petitioners are not in a position to enter into their land; it is impossible to cultivate their land and the same is kept idle without raising any seasonal crop and regular paddy; further informed that the back water of the reservoir surrounded on all the three sides of this village and on the other side a hill and forest are located, as such there is no road connectivity to their village, and that due to back waters, the communication would cut-off to the village, if, water is stored up to FRL of Somasila Project, the village has no electricity supply nor protected water supply. In view of the same the petitioners were forced to go to other village to settle down. The petitioners are living by doing cooli work on daily wage basis and they lost their livelihood on account of storage of back water of Somasila project, in their land. 5. Basing on the representation made by one of the villagers, the Project Engineer given requisition to the Government for acquisition, basing on the same their land was acquired through Special Officer, District Empowerment Committee, and the Government taken possession of the land. But, the respondents are not paid compensation to the petitioners for their land. They are making representations continuously to the respondents dated 22.05.20.17, 20.02.2019 and finally on 16.09.2019 by registered post and the same were received by the respondents but they are not taking steps to settle the issue of compensation payable by the respondents which is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act. They are making representations continuously to the respondents dated 22.05.20.17, 20.02.2019 and finally on 16.09.2019 by registered post and the same were received by the respondents but they are not taking steps to settle the issue of compensation payable by the respondents which is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners further contended that it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to pay compensation the moment they have taken the possession of the land but the respondents are not even trying to fix the compensation which action is in violation of their statutory duty. Though the petitioners deprived of their right to enjoy the property, the respondents are not properly responding to the request of the petitioners and left the land fallow due to submersion in the backwater of Somasila project, thereby the petitioners are facing financial crisis while leading idle life without any work. 6. In response to the representation of the petitioners dated 16.09.2019, respondent No.1 vide his Memo dated 23.01.2020 directed the Special Collector to examine the issue as per rules and further instructed to take further action as per rules as early as possible. In spite of the same, respondent No.3 did not take any steps to examine issue for payment of compensation to the petitioners. Hence, against the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation and not examining the issue of payment of compensation as directed by respondent No.1 vide memo dated 23.01.2020, the petitioners approached this Court having no other remedy seeking relief as stated above, requested to issue Writ of Mandamus. 7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed common counter while denying the material allegations of acquisition of land of the petitioners, taking delivery of the possession of the land, so also failure to pay compensation, it is contended that the Executive Engineer, Division No.IV, Somasila Project, Atmakur sent requisition to the Special Deputy Collector, Somasila Project, Unit IV, Rajampet to acquire the land to an extent of Ac.217.60 cents Rangampalli Village of Atloor Mandal for fore shore submersion under Somasila Project vide Lr.No.D8.D3/27/61/ 1129M, dated 27.11.1990 excluding the land in different survey numbers, which are as follows: Sy. No. Extent in Ac. & cents 1/1 2.02 4/1 1.82 29/1 0.41 29/2 0.65 29/3 0.38 29/4 29/5 1.10 &0.26 29/6(A) 1.09 8. No. Extent in Ac. & cents 1/1 2.02 4/1 1.82 29/1 0.41 29/2 0.65 29/3 0.38 29/4 29/5 1.10 &0.26 29/6(A) 1.09 8. The then Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Somasila Project, Rajampet has submitted proposals, Draft Notification & Draft Declaration to the Special Collector (L.A), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore vide Ref.No.F.1326/90, dated.02.01.1991 as follows: Patta Land Ac.147.72 cents Poramboke Land Ac.56.98 cents Assessed Waste Lands Ac.4.17 cents & Assessed Waste Lands Ac.8.73 cents Total Land Ac.217.60 cents. 9. The then Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Somasila Project, Rajampet submitted the Draft Notification and Draft Declaration proposals and stated that the above extent in Ac.217.60 cents of Rangampalli Village of Atloor Mandal splitted in to 3 reaches for administrative convenience. 10. The then Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Somasila Project, Rajampet issued draft notification for acquisition of the land liable for submersion in 330 Contour under Somasila Project in Rangampalli Village of Atloor Mandal of YSR Kadapa District. The Special Deputy Collector (L.A), Rajampet transferred the file to the unit of Atmakur after submission of Draft Notification and Draft Declaration. The entire village is liable for submersion. The land in the village has been divided into 3 Reaches for administrative convenience. The following Awards are passed and amount was paid to the awardees except the petitioner's land. 1. Reach No.1 Award No. 6/93-94, Dt. 02.02.1994 2. Reach No. II Award No. 7/93-94, Dt. 02.02.1994 3. Reach No. III Award No.5/93-94, Dt. 21.01.1994 11. The petitioners filed objections after lapse of 27 years from the date of Draft Notification and Draft Declaration. Hence the present Writ Petition is time barred. 12. It is further contended that the Special Collector has instructed the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) to take action on the petitioners’ representation dated 16.09.2019 duly enclosing the memo of respondent No.1 dated 23.01.2020 to examine the issue as per rule. The same information is forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District vide this office reference No.C.10/2021 dated 27.01.2021 as in the requisition, the said survey numbers of petitioners were not covered and requested to inform whether the said survey numbers requisitioned or not. The same information is forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District vide this office reference No.C.10/2021 dated 27.01.2021 as in the requisition, the said survey numbers of petitioners were not covered and requested to inform whether the said survey numbers requisitioned or not. The Executive Engineer, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District has reported that “the requisition for petitioners land cannot be initiated above FRL land by the requisition department without Government permission as it is a policy matter.” Thus, the land of the petitioners is not acquired; thereby taking possession of the property by acquisition authority does not arise. Consequently, the allegation that the petitioners’ land was acquired by the respondents, failed to fix compensation and pay the same to the petitioners is without any basis, requested to dismiss the petition finally. 13. Smt.Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that when the major part of land in Rangampali Village i.e. Ac.217.60 cents was acquired by the respondents, leaving the little extent of land belonging to the petitioners on the ground that it is beyond FRL of Somasila project is illegal and arbitrary for the reason that due to submersion of the land in back water of the Somasila project, they could not cultivate the same, thereby lost their livelihood and unable to lead normal life since no income is being derived from the agricultural land and were forced to vacate the entire village and settle in the nearby villages. As such, the act of the respondents in non-payment of the compensation though possession of the land was taken by them is illegal, arbitrary and it amounts to expropriating the immovable property of the petitioners without following due process of law and it is in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Though, the petitioners made several representations, there was no proper response for payment of compensation, thereby the inaction of the respondents amounts to grave violation of constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, requested to grant relief as claimed in the writ petition. 14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that when no requisition was received from the concerned Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Atmakur for acquisition of the land of the petitioners as it is beyond FRL of Somasila project, the acquisition of the same does not arise. 14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue contended that when no requisition was received from the concerned Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Atmakur for acquisition of the land of the petitioners as it is beyond FRL of Somasila project, the acquisition of the same does not arise. In fact, the land was not acquired and possession was not delivered to the respondents, thereby question of payment of compensation does not arise, and that the objections regarding acquisition were filed after 25 years approximately, requested to dismiss the writ petition as there is no cause of action for the petitioners. 15. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record including the relief claimed by the petitioners, the point needs to be answered by this Court is as follows: “Whether the inaction of the respondents for their failure to pay compensation/ex gratia to the petitioners for the land acquired by the respondents for the Somasila Project be declared as illegal and arbitrary? Consequently, a direction be issued for payment of compensation?” POINT : 16. As seen from the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioners are the owners of the land in various survey numbers, the details are as follows: Petitioner No. Sy. No. Extent in Ac. & cents 1. 1/1 2.02 2. 4/1 1.82 3. 29/1 0.41 4. 29/2 0.65 5. 29/3 0.38 6. 29/4 29/5 1.10 & 0.26 7. 29/6(A) 1.09 17. Acquisition of Ac.217.60 cents in Rangampalli Village for Somasila project on the requisition made by the Executive Engineer is not in dispute, so also payment of compensation to the land owners. 18. Curiously, the petitioners made an allegation in paragraph No.6 of the affidavit that based on the representation made by the villagers, the Project Engineer gave requisition to the Government for acquisition, basing on the same, the land of the petitioners is acquired through Special Officer, District Empowerment Committee, petitioners left the land to the Government, and the Government taken possession of the land of the petitioners, but did not pay compensation for the land taken by them. While the respondents admitting acquisition of Ac.217.60 cents, denied the very acquisition of the land of the petitioners and submitted that the Executive Engineer, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District has reported that “the requisition for petitioners land cannot be initiated above FRL lands by the requisition department without Government permission as it is a policy matter.” Thus, the land of the petitioners, which is beyond FRL of the Somasila Project was not acquired. 19. If really, the land of the petitioner is acquired, lot of procedure to be followed for acquisition of the property prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013) for payment of compensation. The representations made by the petitioners and memo issued by respondent No.1 disclosed that the land of the petitioners is not acquired. In the representations, it is alleged that the agricultural land is located in submerged area due to backwater of Somasila project as identified by the concerned Engineer and other authorities. But the land was not acquired as no requisition was received from requisition department. In 1991, the respondents acquired the land and passed an award in 1994, taken delivery of possession, but no compensation was paid despite the demands made by the petitioners and copy of representations are placed on record. In the representations, though alleged that the land was acquired, award was passed, no award copy is placed on record to claim relief in the present writ petition. When the land is acquired and award is passed, question of non-payment of compensation does not arise in normal course. The correspondence taken place between the petitioners and the department based on the representations made by the petitioners disclosed that the land was not acquired as there was no requisition from the Executive Engineer. But in the letter addressed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), TGP, Unit II, Kadapa to the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa vide Ref.No.1/2011 dated 01.02.2012 it is stated that the land of Rangampali was requisitioned during years 1990 and 1991. The total extent of land of 156.08 acres was divided into 3 reaches for the administrative convenience to acquire the land. Reach No.1 Ac.44.49 Reach No.2 Ac.66.19 Reach No.3 Ac.45.40 Ac.156.08 20. Awards were passed during the year 1994 vide Award No.5/1994, 6/1994 and 7/1994 of Special Deputy Collector (LA) SSP, Atmakur. The total extent of land of 156.08 acres was divided into 3 reaches for the administrative convenience to acquire the land. Reach No.1 Ac.44.49 Reach No.2 Ac.66.19 Reach No.3 Ac.45.40 Ac.156.08 20. Awards were passed during the year 1994 vide Award No.5/1994, 6/1994 and 7/1994 of Special Deputy Collector (LA) SSP, Atmakur. Besides the above reaches, the structures of the village in village site Sy.Nos.6/1 and 26/2 and structure in patta land in Sy.No.3/2 (1.30 acres) were acquired during the year 2004. 21. Further, it is stated that according to the joint inspection the balance land and structures of Rangampalli Village are situated as follows according to revised survey done during 2008-2009. Land below FRL: Sl. No. Sy. No. Extent Remarks 1 22/1 0.48 Vacant 2 25/2 0.38 Vacant 3 25/9 0.67 Vacant 4 25/10 0.47 Vacant 5 25/12 0.36 Vacant 6 25/13 0.28 Vacant 7 25/14 0.52 Vacant 8 25/16 0.26 Vacant 9 25/17 0.65 Vacant 10 25/18 0.18 Vacant 11 25/19 0.17 Vacant 12 25/20 0.19 Vacant Total 4.61 Land above FRL: Sl. No. Sy. No. Extent Remarks 1 22/2 0.45 17 structures 2 3/1 1.04 34 structures 3 Total 1.49 51 structures 22. Further requested the Government to accord permission for the acquisition of land in an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.22/2 and Ac.1.04 cents in Sy.No.3/1 situated above FLR in which structures are erected since 2004. It is also stated that C.M.Palakonda Reddy and C.Venkata Subba Reddy of Malinenipatnam village has represented the Special Deputy Collector on 27.12.2011 that the compensation was not paid to the Patta holders, and it is stated that the petitioners requested to consider their land as submergible one and requested to pay the compensation for the land. 23. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) verified the RSR and other village accounts and awards passed in the village and found that the compensation was not paid for an extent of Ac.2.02 cents in Sy.No.1-1, Ac.1.82 in Sy.No.4-1, Ac.0.41 cents in Sy.No.29-1, Ac.0.65 cents in Sy.No.29-2, Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.29-3, Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.29-4, and the land in Sy.No.29/6 is Government land. 24. Finally, the Special Deputy Collector (LA) stated that the back water of the Somasila project reservoir surrounded in all the three sides of the village, but the other side is hill and forest. There is no road connectivity to the village. 24. Finally, the Special Deputy Collector (LA) stated that the back water of the Somasila project reservoir surrounded in all the three sides of the village, but the other side is hill and forest. There is no road connectivity to the village. Due to the backwater, the communication was cut off to the village and to the balance land. Under these circumstances, the villagers stated that they cannot live in the remote village, requested to acquire the balance left over land as early as possible. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) finally requested the Special Collector to obtain necessary orders from the Government while annexing the copy of joint inspection report and report submitted by the Executive Engineer on measurement of structures existing in Sy.No.22/2 and 3/1 and RSR copy for survey No.1, 4 and 29 and other land is herewith enclosed for taking further action. 25. The petitioners land is in Sy.Nos.1/1, 4/1, 29/1, 29/2, 29/3, 29/4, 29/5, 29/6 (A). As per the letter addressed by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), TGP, Unit-II, Kadapa to the Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa, the land of the petitioners is submergible land due to back water of Somasila project, but the land was not acquired and no compensation was paid despite their representation and loss of livelihood on account of submersion of land due to back water of Somasila project. 26. It is the contention of the petitioners that their land was acquired, but no compensation was paid. Absolutely, no evidence is placed on record to show that the land of the petitioners in different survey numbers (referred supra) was acquired by the respondents for Somasila Project on the ground that the land is submergible land due to backwater of Somasila project. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 specifically denied the acquisition of the land and even after lot of correspondence, the Executive Engineer concerned submitted that the land of the petitioners, which is beyond FRL cannot be acquired except with the permission of the Government. The same itself indicates that the land was not acquired, thereby taking possession of the land does not arise. Therefore, this Court cannot compel the respondents to pay compensation for the land belonging to the petitioners though it is affected by backwater of Somasila Project. The same itself indicates that the land was not acquired, thereby taking possession of the land does not arise. Therefore, this Court cannot compel the respondents to pay compensation for the land belonging to the petitioners though it is affected by backwater of Somasila Project. At best, the Government has to take appropriate steps for acquisition of the property so as to enable the petitioners to lead their normal life or by providing necessary alternative land for their livelihood. 27. When a notification for acquisition of land under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and published declaration, the petitioners did not raise any objection for the proposed acquisition, but suddenly after 25 years, objections were raised, by that time entire process of acquisition was completed. Hence, at this stage, it is impossible to consider the objections. 28. The contention of the petitioners from the beginning is that their land was acquired, but compensation was not paid. The acquisition is not supported by any material and no copy of the award is placed on record for perusal of the Court, except raising contention of the petitioners. Further, the respondents stated in paragraph No.5 of the counter that “the requisition for petitioners land cannot be initiated above FRL lands by the requisition department without Government permission as it is a policy matter”. In the absence of requisition, the Special Collector, Somasila Project cannot acquire the land and in the absence of acquisition, this Court cannot compel the respondents to pay compensation. Hence, I find no merit in the contentions of petitioners to issue a direction to the respondents for payment of compensation to the petitioners as their land was not requisitioned by the Executive Engineer and not acquired by the respondents. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 29. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 30. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.