THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.1616 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION No.1617 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, Smt. K. Sesharajyam, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.1616 of 2009 and Sri Pullarao Yellanki, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 in W.P. No.1617 of 2009. At their request, these writ petitions are being finally disposed of. These Writ Petitions are filed to declare the action of the Land Acquisition Officer, in not referring the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, inspite of the petitioner’s objection petition dated 27.01.2009. It is the petitioner’s case that his fore-father’s were the original owners of the land in question; the land is in their possession and enjoyment without interference from any authority till date; the revenue authorities had recognized their forefather’s name as the owner of the property and had made entries in the revenue records despite which the petitioners name was not reflected in the Section 4(1) notification and, instead, the name of the unofficial respondents was shown therein. The petitioners would contend that he was denied an opportunity of participating in the award enquiry, and that an award was eventually passed directing payment of compensation to the unofficial respondents though he was the rightful claimant of the compensation for the land acquired. He would seek a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the name of the petitioner was not found in the revenue records as such his name was not reflected either in the Section 4(1) notification or in the Draft Declaration under Section 6; even the name of his forefathers was not reflected in the revenue records; the petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to any compensation for the land acquired; since the petitioner’s name was not shown in the Section 4(1) notification, or in the Draft Declaration under Section 6, the notices under Section 9(3) and 10 were not issued to him; and that he was not entitled to seek a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The unofficial respondents have also filed their respective counter- affidavits wherein they have given details of their title over the property in question. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that, when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such disputes to the decision of the Court. While a dispute regarding the person, to whom compensation under the Award is required to be paid, can only be adjudicated by the civil Court under Section 30 and not by the Land Acquisition Officer, a dispute can be said to have arisen regarding the persons to whom compensation is payable only if the party, claiming that compensation should be paid to him instead of the person whose name is reflected in Section 4(1) notification and the declaration under Section 6, is in a position, atleast prima facie, to furnish details of his title over the property in question. In the case on hand except for a vague averment that the petitioner’s forefathers name was reflected in the revenue records, no details whatsoever have been furnished to show, even prima facie, that the petitioner has title over the property in question Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while the petitioner’s forefathers name was reflected in the revenue records in the 1950s, their names were deleted in 1970 as a result of which they are now being denied the compensation which rightfully belongs to them. Admittedly, for the past nearly forty years, neither the petitioner’s name nor that of his forefathers is reflected in any of the revenue records as being the owner of the property in question. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent-Land acquisition Officer cannot be faulted for not referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The writ petitions, as filed, are devoid of merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 08.04.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Furnish copy in ten days B/o MRKR