IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8993 of 2004 Between: Bheemaarjun Reddy, S/o Late K. Yadav Reddy, R/o Thondupally (V), Shamshabad (M), R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, R.R. District at Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The R.D.O. -cum-L.A.O. Chevella Division, R.R. District at Rajendranagar. 3 National High Way Authority of India, rep. by its Project Director, having branch office at 6-1-132/65, Skandagiri Temple, Near Water Tank, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. 4 Prabhudayal Kediya, S/o Late Chiman Ram, R/o H.No. 19-2-226, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. 5 R. Balamani, W/o Balraj, R/o Thondupally (v). Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.L.HARISH Counsel for the Respondents: (1) AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION FOR R1 AND R2. (2) SRI A.LAXMINARAYANA FOR M/S M.V.KINI & CO FOR R3 (3)SRI N.KRISHNA FOR SRI VENKATA RAGHU RAMULU FOR R4 (4) NONE APPEARED FOR R5 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8993 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to restrain respondent No.2 from issuing cheques to respondent Nos.4 and 5 without referring the dispute to competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri A.Laxminarayana, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and Sri N.Krishna, learned counsel for Sri Venkata Raghu, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. 3. The dispute pertains to 0.18 gts. of land in Sy.No.219 of Thondupally Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said land, along with other lands, was acquired and Award was passed on 26.03.2004. While a copy of the said award has not been ﬁled by any of the parties in this writ petition, the fact remains that the competing claims of the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were considered by respondent No.2 and the award was passed in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is not disputed that cheque bearing No.722171 was issued in favour of respondent No.4 for a sum of Rs.54,20,800/- towards the compensation. 4. In the counter aﬃdavit of respondent No.4, it is stated that the said cheque was encashed by him on 10.05.2004. Since this fact is not disputed by the petitioner, the part of the relief pertaining to restraining respondent No.2 from issuing cheques in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has become infructuous. 5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client made a claim, for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act to the competent Civil Court to decide the persons, who are entitled to receive the compensation, on 06.05.2004. 6. Since no counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the plea of the petitioner as to whether he is entitled to reference under Section 18 of the Act or not cannot be determined in this writ petition. It will, however, suﬃce if respondent No.2 is directed to consider whether the petitioner made a request in writing for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act within the time limit prescribed and if he ﬁnds that the petitioner made such a request and that the same was made within the time limit as aforementioned, he shall refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court within a period of three months from today. If, on the other hand, he ﬁnds that no such application has been ﬁled or that an application if ﬁled was not within the time limit prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner, within the aforementioned period of three months. 7. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 27.08.2008 v v