THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19431 of 2007 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing and being disposed of by this order. Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking the relief, which, in terms of the amended prayer, reads as under: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not referring the matter to civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in spite of objection petition dt.3.9.2007 in respect of land of Gaddipati Venkaiah situated in Sy.No.201/4 to an extent of Ac.2.08 cents and Sy.No.205/2 to an extent of Acs.4.45 cents, 257/1 to an extent of Ac.2.48 cents, 259/5 to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents of Kunavaram Village and mandal, Khammam District, covered under 4(1) notification Rc.No.A/26/2007, dt.18.6.2007 which was published in Hindu Daily Paper dt.17.7.2007 including the 1st respondent proceedings Rc.No.A/26/07, Award No.8, dt.06.06.2008 is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court by depositing the land acquisition amount in question as per the Land Acquisition Act.” Petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 are sons and daughter of late Sri Venkaiah, in whose favour, patta was granted. He was holding patta with regard to lands covered by Survey Nos.201/4, 205/2, 257/1 and 259/5 situated at Kunavaram Village and Mandal of Khammam District. The said lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for the purpose of construction of reservoir under Indira Sagar Project. After issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer took up award enquiry. In the award enquiry, there was a rival claim by the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 and others for compensation. On the ground that the claim of the petitioners was not being considered and the steps were being taken by the Land Acquisition Officer for payment of compensation in favour of respondent No.3, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. This Court by way of interim order, dated 13.09.2007, issued directions to the official respondents not to disburse the amount of compensation to anybody, pending further orders. Subsequently, when the petitioners came to know about passing of Award No.8 in Rc.No.A/26/07, dated 06.06.2008, they sought amendment of the prayer by filing WPMP.No.28767 of 2011, which in turn, was allowed by this Court. In terms of the amended prayer, the petitioners have questioned validity of Award No.8 in Rc.No.A/26/07, dated 06.06.2008, passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Polavaram Project, Bhadrachalam. In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the rival claims and simply on the ground that Writ Petition No.19431 of 2007 filed by them is pending before this Court, ordered for deposit of the compensation in the Court. A perusal of a copy of the impugned award indicates that the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the claims of the parties and simply, ordered for deposit of the compensation in the Court and the relevant portion of the same reads as under: “The pattadar Gaddipati Venkaiah S/o Venkatappaiah got settlement patta for above land. He died. The land is shared among his five sons Gaddipati Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Seshagiri Rao, Shanmukheswara Rao, Madhusudana Rao, Nagabhushanam and daughter Chadalavada Bhanumati. As Nagabhushanam his son Ravi Kumar died, Gaddipati Sujata W/o Ravi Kumar is claimant on the land. However Gaddipati Madhusudan Rao, Sesagiri Rao, Shanmukeswara Rao filed Writ Petition 19431/07 and WPMP 25003/07 in High Court and the matter is still pending in Court. Hence, the amount is deposited in Court till finalisation of the Case.” As per the provision under Section 11 of the Act, when there is a rival claim with regard to the land acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer has two alternatives, namely, 1) to decide the matter by himself or 2) to refer the same to the civil Court. If he chooses to follow the first option, he has to determine the area of the land, the amount of compensation and the persons, who, according to him, are entitled to compensation, and pass an award incorporating his decision on these counts. If any person aggrieves by such award, he can seek reference under Section 18 of the Act within a period of limitation and the Land Acquisition Officer on receiving such application within the time, is bound to refer the matter to the civil Court. In the event of the Land Acquisition Officer choosing to second option, he has to determine the area of the land, the quantum of compensation and make a suo motu reference under Section 30 of the Act to the civil Court to decide the conflicting claims. In this case, the Land Acquisition Officer has not chosen to any of the options referred to above and simply, ordered for deposit of the compensation in the Court with regard to the lands in question. In that view of the matter, the impugned award to the extent of the lands admeasuring Acs.2.08 cents, Acs.4.45 cents, Acs.2.48 cents, Ac.0.85 cents covered by Survey Nos.201/4, 205/2, 257/1 and 259/5 respectively, situated at Kunavaram Village and Mandal, Khammam District, is hereby quashed with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass appropriate award afresh, by considering the claims of the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 and others, if any, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to entitlement of the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 and others, if any, for compensation in respect of the lands in question. It is open to the Land Acquisition Officer to examine the claims independently uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. The Writ Petition is allowed with the directions referred to above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni