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. 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 requisition of Executive Engineer, SRSP. It is also submitted that the request of petitioner was not considered, since the balance extent of Ac.1.00 guntas and bore well was neither notified nor covered by the award. 6. It is submitted that a survey was conducted by the Tahsildar, Balkonda Mandal, and that the Tahsildar vide letter dated 30.04.2022 informed that petitioner was in possession of Ac.1.15 guntas and petitioner’s name is recorded in Dharani Portal for an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas vide Khatha No.564 and the same is contrary to the averments that his entire land has been acquired. Along with counter affidavit, photo copy of the documents of the land acquired by the Land Acquisition office, is annexed at Page No.7, wherein it is reflected that in Sy.No.471/1, the total extent of land is Ac.2.36 guntas and an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas has been acquired. Along with counter affidavit, photo copy of the documents of the land acquired by the Land Acquisition office, is annexed at Page No.7, wherein it is reflected that in Sy.No.471/1, the total extent of land is Ac.2.36 guntas and an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas has been acquired. From the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, dated March, 1997, it is apparent that an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas has been acquired for excavation of 2 nd lift of D3 of Laxmi Canal from Km.2.250 to Km.4.00. 7. Apart from this extent, there is no extent which has been acquired in Sy.No.471/1 as per the official documents. As per the documents annexed, the land value for Ac.0.36 guntas was arrived at Rs.40,500/-, 30% solatium came to Rs.12,150/-, 12% AMU came to Rs.1,498/-, the total amount payable stood at Rs.54,148/- and name of the awardee is Bobbili Rajanna. Apart from these proceedings of the awardee, there are other survey numbers and awardees whose land has been acquired. It appears from the record that no other land of the petitioner has been acquired. If at all it is acquired, it would have been reflected at least in any one of the proceedings placed on record. Even as per the proceedings of the Special Collector dated 29.01.1998 (at Page Nos.28, 29), it is reflected that petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas is under acquisition. There is no other grievance of petitioner, except that land to extent of Ac.1.36 guntas has been acquired and amount to the extent of Ac.0.36 guntas is only paid. Except this allegation, there is no other allegation. 8. Page No.38 is an Acquittance Roll of award No.41/97- 98, dated 31.03.1998. A photo copy of the entire list of awardees with thumb impressions/signatures is on record. Page No.41 is in respect of Sy.No.471/1, reflecting an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas pertaining to awardee (Bobbili Rajanna). An amount of Rs.54,148/- is shown against his name at Sl.No.7 and his signature is reflected in the column against the receipt of amount. It is also signed by VAO. On a perusal of the signature on the writ affidavit and acquittance roll, it is clear that the signature is same. Having received the amounts, petitioner cannot now agitate that the extent of land acquired is Ac.1.36 guntas, without any documentary evidence to demonstrate his claim. 9. It is also signed by VAO. On a perusal of the signature on the writ affidavit and acquittance roll, it is clear that the signature is same. Having received the amounts, petitioner cannot now agitate that the extent of land acquired is Ac.1.36 guntas, without any documentary evidence to demonstrate his claim. 9. On a perusal of the representation dated 03.04.1998, which is in Telugu, addressed to the Special Deputy Collector, L.A., (Page No.10, Ex.P1 of the writ affidavit), it is apparent that land to an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas of petitioner was sought. On further perusal, it is observed that an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas of land was damaged due to digging of canal. Petitioner is seeking a compensation for the damage, but in the writ affidavit, it is alleged that an extent of Ac.1.36 guntas of land has been acquired, which is contrary to the material on record. 10. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas was notified, acquired and an award came to be passed. It is evident from the contents of the representation that only Ac.0.36 guntas of land was acquired. 11. Counter affidavit is filed by the concerned Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department. It is averred that, the department acquired an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas in Sy.No.471/1. That an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas of land is acquired as claimed by the petitioner is denied. It is averred that by award dated 13.03.1997 (copy annexed), an amount of Rs.54,148 /- is paid for the land acquired i.e., for Ac.0.36 guntas. A copy of the relevant Dharani Portal is placed on record, it is reflected in the copy that land acquired is an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas. The other extent of Ac.1.00 guntas stands in the name of Bobbili Rajanna in Sy.No.471/1/AA/1 and that Bobbili Rajanna passed away on 14.10.2021. 12. A copy of the relevant Dharani Portal is placed on record, it is reflected in the copy that land acquired is an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas. The other extent of Ac.1.00 guntas stands in the name of Bobbili Rajanna in Sy.No.471/1/AA/1 and that Bobbili Rajanna passed away on 14.10.2021. 12. Written instructions dated 28.10.2025 are placed on record received from Special Deputy Collector, LA and R & R, Nizamabad and are as follows: “I invite kind attention to the references cited, and submit that this office filed the fair counter duly approved by the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad approved on Dt:09.05.2023 stating that the extent of Ac 0-36 gts was acquired out of total extent of Ac 2-36 gts in Sy.No.471/1 situated at Bodepally village of Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District vide award No.4/1997-98, Dt:31.03.1998 passed by the Special Deputy Collector and compensation of Rs.54,148/- has been paid to the awardee vide cheque No.240951, Dt:31.03.1998. The Writ Petitioner Sri Bobbilli Rajanna S/o Linganna filed the W.P.No.20948/2014 in Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad against the respondents Principal Secretary to Government, I & CAD and (03) others with a request to issue directions to the respondents to pay the compensation for the balance extent Ac 1-00 gts and alleged bore well existing in his patta land Sy.No.471/1. As per the instructions of the Government Pleader, Land Acquisition to ascertain the present stage of balance land and existence of bore well as claimed buy the Writ Petitioner for the report along with photographs on the suit land has been obtain from the Tahsildar, Balkonda 4 th respondent herein vide this office Lr.No.B/892/2025, Dt:27.10.2025. The Tahsildar Balkonda vide his letter 3rd cited submitted a report stating the present status of the land in Sy.No.471/1 as detailed below: Sl.No. Year Sy.No. Extent Name of the pattedar & Enjoyer 1 2006-07 471/1 2-36 Morthad Pedda Rajanna 2 2015-16 471/1 2-36 Morthad Pedda Rajanna 3 2016-17 471/1 1-00 Morthad Pedda Rajanna 0-36 Canal 1-00 Bobbili Rajanna S/o Linganna 4 Online Bhubarathi 471/1/AA/1 1-00 Bobbili MuthannaS/o Rajanna 5 Online Bhubarathi 471/1/AA/2 1-00 Neerati Karthik Kumar S/o Rajanna 6 Online Bhubarathi 471/1/A 0-36 Canal The tahsildar further reported that out of total extent of Ac 2-36 gts in Sy.No.471/1 and extent of Ac 0-36 gts was acquired and compensation paid and the remaining extent is recorded on the name of Bobbili Muthanna S/o Rajanna and others. And no bore well is existing on the spot. The location map along with photographs submitted by the Tahsildar, Balkonda are enclosing herewith for favour of further action.” 13. On a perusal of the instructions, it is evident that extent of Ac.0.36 guntas of land is acquired and not Ac.1.36 guntas as contended, no bore well is existing. 14. This Court is conscious of the fact that no orders can be passed against a dead person. The grievance of petitioner was that land acquired for digging of canal was Ac.1.36 guntas and not Ac.0.36 guntas. Perused the material on record, no documentary evidence is put forth by petitioner before this Court to substantiate his claim. In fact the material on record put forth by respondents speaks contrary. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner lastly submitted that he has no instructions (that petitioner died on 14.10.2021, certificate dated 20.10.2021 is enclosed at Page No.8 of counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2). That it may be kept open for the legal heirs of writ petitioner to pursue any future course of action as per law. This Court, having perused the material on record, is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the contentions raised by the counsels for respondents (land acquisition counsel and counsel for Irrigation department). It is apparent from the record that an extent of Ac.0.36 guntas of land was acquired and the extent of Ac.1.00 guntas was not acquired, as alleged by the writ petitioner. Having heard the counsels, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders. Court has undertaken the exercise of recording the submissions and the facts as observed from the material on record and on the submissions advanced. 16. Writ Petition is closed as abated, with a liberty to the legal heirs (if any) to take steps as sought for. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.