* THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + Writ Petition No.11947 of 2007 % DT.07.07.2011 # Kalla Surender Reddy …Petitioner Vs. $ The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and others … Respondents ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Surender Reddy ! Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: Sri B.Narayana Reddy < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.11947 of 2007 Dated 07th July, 2011 Between: Kalla Surender Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Surender Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: Sri B.Narayana Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not settling the bona fide civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 and in not referring the dispute to the competent civil Court for adjudication with regard to payment of compensation pertaining to lands in Survey Nos.38/1 and 39 of Adegoam (k) Village, Echoda Mandal, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 are brothers. Their lands were acquired for construction of Adegoam Project. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that his father died ten years back and mother seven years back and that after their death, all the four brothers are equally entitled to the lands in Survey Nos.38/1 and 39. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that it was agreed among all the brothers that the loan amounts of their parents are to be borne out by all of them equally and that when the lands in question were proposed to be acquired, the petitioner requested his other brothers to pay the loan amount, which was already discharged by him, but they refused to accept his request. Apprehending that his brothers, namely, respondent Nos.4 to 6, are likely to claim their share of compensation for acquisition of the lands in question without remitting the loan amount to him, he allegedly made a representation to the official respondents to pass an award by taking into account the arrangement between him and his brothers regarding apportionment of the loan liability. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said representation, an award was passed without accepting his request. No counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.2 passed an award in accordance with law considering the title of the petitioner and his brothers and duly apportioning their shares in proportion to their title and interest in the lands and that the dispute raised by the petitioner is not referable to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6, also supported the submission of the learned Government Pleader. In my opinion, the aspect relating to apportionment of loan liability among the co-owners/co-sharers does not fall within the ambit of Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The said provisions empower the civil Court to decide the disputes relating to the title and the apportionment of compensation based on such decision. If the petitioner has discharged the loans on the acquired properties as per his family arrangement, he is entitled to assert his right to recover the share of loan amount from respondent Nos.4 to 6 before a competent civil Court. There is no obligation on the part of respondent No.2 to refer such a dispute to the civil Court under the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed as such. The petitioner shall be free to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Court of law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.14848 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th July, 2011 Note: 1. Issue CC in ten days. 2. LR copies to be marked (b/o) VGB