THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20339 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is the owner of Acs.5-44 cents of land in Sy.Nos.383/5 of Boragamanda village of Chittoor District. The property is said to have been purchased by his father, in an auction held for execution of a decree. A part of the land is said to have been used, in laying the road by the Roads and Buildings Department. The petitioner approached this court, on an earlier occasion, by ﬁling W.P.No.21503 of 2004, with a prayer to direct the respondents, to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”), in respect of the land, which was used for laying the road. The writ petition was allowed on 24.11.2004. Consequently, the 1st respondent issued Notiﬁcation dated 5.8.2005, under Section 4(1) of the Act, notifying an extent of Ac.1-17 cents of land for acquisition. Thereafter, an errata was published on 26.3.2006, restricting the extent of land to 0-65 cents. The petitioner ﬁled Contempt Case No.618 of 2006, feeling aggrieved by the errata. The contempt case was disposed of on 18.6.2007, leaving it open to the petitioner to canvas his grievance through separate proceedings. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that it was only on being satisﬁed that an extent of Ac.1-17 cents of land is utilized, in laying the road, that the notiﬁcation dated 5.8.2005 was issued, but the extent was reduced thereafter, on account of extraneous considerations. On behalf of respondents, a counter aﬃdavit is filed. It is stated that the errata was issued, on ﬁnding that the actual area that was utilized in laying the road, was only 0-65 cents. It is also stated that an award was passed on 4.8.2006, under Section 12 (2) of the Act. It is alleged that since the petitioner refused to receive the compensation, it was kept in deposit. Heard Sri Rama Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. This is not a case, where the proceedings under the Act are initiated with an object of acquiring the land for public purpose. On the other hand, the land was already put to public use and the proceedings are initiated, only with a view to pave the way for payment of compensation. Though at a belated stage, the respondents issued notiﬁcation under Section 14(1) of the Act on 5.8.2005, in respect of Ac.1-17 cents of land, few months thereafter, an errata was issued, reducing the extent to 0-65 cents. It is diﬃcult for this court to decide as to the exact area that was either utilized by the respondents, or lost by the petitioner. It is not as if the petitioner is without any remedy. Section 18 of the Act provides for determination of rights by a Civil Court, not only as to adequacy of compensation, but also the extent of land taken over from the owner. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not received the compensation, as yet, he can certainly make an application, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, while receiving the compensation. As and when the reference is made, the petitioner can put forward his case, as to the actual extent that is utilized in laying the road. Oral and documentary evidence can be adduced, and the Civil Court would be in a better position to determine the actual area utilized for laying the road. In case, the contention of the petitioner is accepted, in its entirety or in part, the corresponding compensation can certainly be directed to be paid. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, laving it open to the petitioner to put forward his contentions, as to the actual extent utilized in laying the road by the respondents, by seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ 15th October 2008 PAN