IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1296 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 5287 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Siddi Shareef, S/o. Siddi Moulana, R/o. H.No. 2-2-653, Siddi Ashoor Khana, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 2 Siddi Saleem, S/o. Siddi Ibrahim, R/o. H.No. 2-2-652/2, Siddi Ashoor Khana, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 3 Siddi Masood, S/o. late Siddi Khaja, R/o. H.No. 2-2-657/A, Siddi Ashoor Khana, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 4 Siddi Airfur Rahman, S/o. Siddi Qasim, R/o. H.No. 2-2-656, Siddi Ashoor Khana, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 5 Siddi Pran, S/o. Siddi Chand, R/o. H.No. 2-2-966, Siddi Ashoor Khana, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 6 Siddi Azam, S/o. Late Siddi Osman, R/o. H.No. 2-2-657/A, Siddi Ashoor Khana, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 7 Siddi Ali Baba, S/o. Siddi Chand, R/o. H.No. 2-2-966, Siddi Ashoor Khana, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. 8 Siddi Afzal, S/o. Siddi Hasham, R/o. H.No. 2-11-93, Bharathnagar, Uppal Road, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, G.H.M.C., Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2 Siddi Basheer, S/o. Siddi Mahboob, ( Siddi Vazir ) R/o. H.NO. 2-2-652, Siddi Ashoor Khana Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 3 Siddi Siddique, S/o. Late Siddi Jaffar, R/o. H.NO. 2-2-652, Siddi Ashoor Khana Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 4 Siddi Shukur, S/o. Siddi Jaffar, R/o. H.NO. 2-2-652, Siddi Ashoor Khana Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. 5 Siddi Jabbar, S/o. Siddi Mahboob, R/o. H.NO. 2-2-652, Siddi Ashoor Khana Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.MOHD. GHULAM HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1296 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5287 of 2008 dated 11-09-2008. 2. The petitioners are the appellants herein. They have filed the writ petition challenging the award dated 29-01-2008 in respect of acquisition of land bearing Sy.Nos.78, 79 and 80 in an extent of 1628-85 square metres equivalent to 1948-59 square yards situated in Bagh Amberpet village, Revenue Mandal Amberpet, Hyderabad district. The petitioners further sought direction to stop payment of compensation to respondents No.2 to 5 herein and to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) pursuant to their applications dated 07-03-2008 and 10-03-2008. 3. The petitioners claim that the land in T.S.No.8/2 was originally owned by one Siddi Hussain and his brothers and that the petitioners, respondents 2 to 5 and certain others are the legal descendants of the original owner. A notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been published by the District Collector, Hyderabad, for the purpose of construction of a bridge across Moosi river between Golnaka and Malakpet. The case of petitioners is that they are not aware of the notiﬁcations issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act as they were published in Telugu and English dailies and they are conversant with Urdu language only and the notiﬁcations have not been published in any Urdu daily in Hyderabad. The contesting respondents mainly contended that the proceedings have been concluded and once an award is passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, he becomes functus oﬃcio. The learned single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, refused to adjudicate the dispute of title between the petitioners and respondents 2 and 5 and granted liberty to the petitioners to work out the remedy by ﬁling a civil suit, and further directed not to disburse the compensation to the said respondents for a period of four weeks thereof. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellants – petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 5. Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for appellants vehemently contended that since the petitioners are conversant with Urdu only and notiﬁcations under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act are not published in Urdu daily, they were not aware of the proceedings. He further contended that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have made a reference either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 contended that the petitioners have neither participated in the award proceedings nor raised any objection at the time of acquisition and that when once they have not raised any objection, they are estopped from seeking reference, especially when the respondents have placed voluminous record before the Land Acquisition officer. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and perused the impugned order. In the instant case, on 16-11-2007 the District Collector, Hyderabad, had published a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the land in question for public purpose and declaration under Section 6 was also published by dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, and both the notiﬁcations have been issued in two dailies viz., Telugu and English. Admittedly, the petitioners have not participated in the land acquisition proceedings and the award came to be passed after survey was conducted. The plea taken by petitioners was that they are conversant with Urdu and since the notiﬁcations have not been published in Urdu daily, they were not aware of the proceedings. This cannot be a sole ground for setting aside the award. In fact, the award had been passed and at this stage, the petitioners have to seek other legal remedy, but not the reference under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act. Apart from this, the parties have raised title and other disputes in respect of the property and in a writ petition, the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided. Therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly given liberty to the petitioners to ﬁle a civil suit and in view of the dispute, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer was directed not to disburse the compensation for a period of four weeks from 11-09-2008. In the circumstances, we do not see any inﬁrmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order. 8. However, having regard to the substantial rights of the parties and the circumstances of the case, we extend the time by eight weeks from today so as to enable the appellants – petitioners to ﬁle a civil suit before the competent court, if they so desire. Till such time, the compensation amount shall not be disbursed to respondents 2 to 5 under the award dated 29-01-2008. 9. Subject to above, the writ appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 10-10-2008 bsc