THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3021 of 2008 Date: 15.02.2008 Between: Chilaka Vijaya Bhasker … Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3021 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 05.02.2008 issued by respondent No.2 whereby he referred the dispute relating to entitlement of compensation between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.310/1, 318, 320/1, 310/3 of Kalanuthala Village to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. Heard Sri B.Devadas, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are brothers. The above- mentioned lands were notified for acquisition on 15.12.2007 for a public purpose. Claiming that he has a share in the compensation and that respondent No.2 was not entertaining his claim over his share of compensation, respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.599 of 2008 before this Court. By order, dated 21.01.2008, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider objections, dated 18.12.2007 filed by respondent No.4 and hear the parties in person before passing the award. In compliance of the said order, respondent No.2 passed order, dated 05.02.2008, which is impugned in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s father executed a registered settlement deed, dated 09.04.2007 and that respondent No.2 without exercising his powers under Section 14 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) by examining the witnesses and appreciating the evidence, passed the impugned order whereunder he referred the dispute to civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have not felt inclined to accept the same. Under Section 30 of the Act, if the Collector is satisfied that any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation settled under Section 11 of the Act or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, he may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.4 raised a specific objection that on the basis of a forged settlement deed, that the petitioner has been making exclusive claim over the compensation and that being the co-parcener along with the petitioner, respondent No.4 is entitled to a share in the compensation. In the light of the objection raised by respondent No.4, respondent No.2 felt that there is a dispute as to the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation and he, therefore, referred the same to the civil Court. In my considered opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though under Section 14 of the Act, respondent No.2 is vested with the powers of a civil Court in respect of the matters indicate therein, the said power cannot be stretched to the extent of expecting respondent No.2 to decide the dispute by assuming the role of a civil Court. Whether the settlement deed on the basis of which the petitioner made his claim is forged or not, is required to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court after recording the evidence of the parties and it is not possible for respondent No.2 to decide the said issue. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.3925 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni