IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4168 of 2007 Between: Shetty Ramesh, S/o. Shetty Chandra Shekher, R/o. 5-2-97, M.G. Road, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy at Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 4 Shetty Shanta Kumar, S/o. Shetty Chandra Shekher, R/o. H.No. 5-4-38, Gunj, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF MANDAMUS" directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to refer the matter Under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to a competent Civil Court as per the application of the petitioner dated 23-12-2006, 28-12-2006, 27-2-2007 for appointment of compensation among the family members and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER: An extent of Acs.17.25 guntas of land in Survey Nos.107 and 108 of Yalal Village and Mandal of Ranga Reddy District was notiﬁed for acquisition, vide notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 18.09.2006 and 19.09.2006 respectively, for the purpose of an irrigation project. The fourth respondent was mentioned as the owner of the property. The petitioner states that his brother, the fourth respondent, started claiming the land as his exclusive property, though both of them have equal share in it. He claims to have made a representation, dated 23.12.2006, before the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer-cum-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, the ﬁrst respondent herein, bringing to his notice the pendency of O.S.No.37 of 1995 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and an interim order was passed in I.A.No.398 of 1995 in that suit. His grievance is that despite his objections, the ﬁrst respondent passed an award, dated 15.02.2007. He seeks a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the compensation. Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on coming to know that the award enquiry is in progress, the petitioner submitted representations to various authorities including the ﬁrst respondent and made a request that the amount of compensation be deposited to the credit of O.S.No.37 of 1995. He submits that an award was passed, almost on the consent said to have been given by the fourth respondent and compensation was paid by the ﬁrst respondent to the fourth respondent, ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not participate in the award enquiry and in his representation, he made a claim vis-à-vis the lands in Viswanathpur Village of Yalal Mandal, which were not acquired at all. The notiﬁcation was issued by the second respondent for acquisition of the land in Survey Nos.107 and 108 of Yalal Village and Mandal. It is no doubt true that O.S.No.37 of 1995 was ﬁled against the fourth respondent and others for partition and separate possession of various items of property, including the lands in the said survey numbers. The record does not disclose that the petitioner had ﬁled any formal application in the award enquiry. He submitted a representation, dated 23.12.2006, before the ﬁrst respondent. A perusal of the same discloses that he made claim vis-à-vis the lands in Survey Nos.106, 107 and 108 of Viswanathpur Village of Yalal Mandal. Even as regards these lands, the petitioner stated that he has no objection for acquisition, but insisted that the amount of compensation be deposited to the credit of O.S.No.37 of 1995. The ﬁrst respondent could not have acted upon this representation for more reasons than one. Firstly, the land mentioned therein was not at all the subject matter of acquisition. Secondly, the petitioner did not lay any claim for the acquired land. Even otherwise, his demand was for depositing the compensation to the credit of O.S.No.37 of 1995. Such a course is impermissible. Deposit of the amount of compensation into a civil Court would arise, if only a reference under Sections 18 or 30 of the Act is made. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer cannot be compelled to deposit the amount of compensation to the credit of a suit, which has nothing to do with the acquisition. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. However, it is made clear that in case a decree is passed in favour of the petitioner to the eﬀect that he too is entitled for any share in the acquired land, the fact that the fourth respondent took the entire compensation for it, shall be taken into account, by the trial Court, while passing the ﬁnal decree. In such an event either he may be required to pay the corresponding amount or the shares vis-à-vis the other properties need to be adjusted. This, however, is a matter, which needs to be examined by the trial Court while disposing of the suit. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.09.2008 kdl