IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28662 of 2010 Between: Yannam Ramakrishna … Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Khammam District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondents 3-5: None This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28662 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in referring the dispute raised by the petitioner to the competent civil Court in respect of compensation payable for the lands admeasuring Hc.0.59 in Sy.No.2/7, Hc.0.40 in Sy.No.64/1, Hc.0.46 in Sy.No.2/4, Hc.1.43 in Sy.No.2/6, Hc.0.40 in Sy.No.64/2 and Hc.0.47 in Sy.No.64/3 of Gowridevipeta Village of Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 failed to enter appearance despite service of notices on them. The abovementioned lands were acquired for construction of Polavaram (Indirasagar) Project. In the award enquiry, rival claims were put forth by the petitioner on the one side and respondent Nos.3 to 5 on the other. Respondent No.1 has passed award on 09.10.2010 in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he made a request in writing to respondent No.1 on 02.11.2010, the latter has not referred the dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.1 has received the representation of the petitioner on 02.11.2010 and that in view of the same, compensation has not been disbursed to respondent Nos.3 to 5. She further stated that so far reference of the dispute is not made to the competent civil Court. Under Section 18 of the Act, if a person, who is interested in the land, has not accepted the award, he is entitled to make a written application to the Collector with a request to refer the dispute pertaining to the measurements of land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. If such representation is made within the time stipulated under Section 18(2), the Collector has no option other than referring the dispute to the competent civil Court. In the instant case, it is admitted that the petitioner made such a representation in writing within the stipulated time. Respondent No.1 ought to have therefore referred the dispute to the civil Court instead of remaining quiet for a substantially long time. For the abovementioned reasons, respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith refer the dispute raised by the petitioner to the competent civil Court and ensure that reference is registered within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.36575 of 2009 is disposed of. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.12.2011 ES