IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL NO.1220 OF 2009 Dt.15.10.2009 Between: V. Subrahmanyam Raju … Appellant And … Respondents V. Surya Babu and others THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL NO.1220 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) Being aggrieved by an order dt.20.8.2009 passed in W.P.M.P. No.19480 of 2009 in W.P. No.4326 of 2009, this appeal has been filed by respondent No.1 in the said W.P.M.P., who is the original petitioner. The case of the appellant is that though he has undivided share of 1/3rd in the land in question, which has been acquired under land acquisition proceedings, his name did not appear in the draft declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). He, therefore, claims right in the compensation. Be it noted, the writ petition filed by the appellant – original petitioner was closed by the learned Single Judge on 25.6.2009 by recording the instructions of the learned Government Pleader that the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) was going to refer the matter to the Civil Court, since there was a civil suit pending over the lands in question, and the compensation in respect of the land would not be disbursed until the matter is settled before the Civil Court. Seeking clarification of the aforestated order, dt.25.6.2009, original respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed W.P.M.P. No.19480 of 2009, stating that the claim of the original petitioner pertained to 1/3rd share of the land only, whereas the LAO, at the instance of the original petitioner, was going to refer the matter to the Civil Court in respect of the entire extent of the land in question and deposit the entire compensation awarded. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, modified the order dt.25.6.2009 passed in the Writ Petition and directed the LAO to refer the matter to the Civil Court and deposit the compensation in the Civil Court in respect of 1/3rd share. Aggrieved by the same, as stated supra, the original petitioner filed the present appeal. The matter is under examination in Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. During the pendency of the matter, 1/3rd share of the compensation amount has been kept aside, so as to compensate to the appellant, in the event of his succeeding in the Civil Court. We, therefore, do not see any irregularity or illegality in the aforestated arrangement for the reason that, if ultimately the appellant succeeds in the Civil Court, by establishing that he had 1/3rd right in the land in question, the amount of compensation kept aside would be given to the appellant and no harm of whatsoever type would be caused to him by reason of the impugned order. Needless to say that so far as remaining 2/3rd share is concerned, the parties, whose names are on record, would be given the said amount, as the present appellant’s claim is not beyond 1/3rd of the land. In view of the above observations, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order and therefore the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 15.10.2009 bnr Note: Issue C.C. by 20.10.2009. (B.O) bnr