HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.31709 of 2011 Date : 8-12-2011 Between: Feroza Begum w/o.late Mohd Afsar .. Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Mir Masood Khan Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in purporting to refer the issue relating to payment of compensation in respect of 25.55 sq. yards, at Kothi, Hyderabad, to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned property which was acquired for widening of road from Puthli Bowli junction to M.J. Market junction at Nampally. Respondent No.2 passed an award on 31-1-2011. A perusal of the said award shows that with regard to the above mentioned property, respondent No.2 has made certain observations which are hard to decipher and on the strength of those observations, he has decided to refer the issue to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. With a great deal of diﬃculty, this Court sought to read some meaning into the statement contained in the award. If we go by this meaning, what respondent No.2 obviously meant is that with regard to the structure existing on the acquired land, one Mohd. Akbar has ﬁled W.P.No.405/1969 complaining of encroachment by the owner of the property by projecting the balcony and raising a partition wall. Respondent No.2 has referred to striking down of the Building Rules and concluded that the “petitioner” cannot be deemed to be an encroacher. On the basis of this vague and laconic observations, respondent No.2 has decided to refer the issue to the Civil Court. Under Section 11(1) of the Act, after completion of award enquiry, an award has to be passed. Except in cases where the dispute arises as to apportionment of the compensation or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the compensation has to be paid to the said person in whose favour the award is passed. However, in case of disputes as referred above, the Collector may, either decide such dispute himself, or refer the same to the decision of the Civil Court. Similar contingencies are envisaged in Section 31(2) of the Act, under which the compensation will be deposited in the Civil Court to which reference under Section 18 of the Act would be submitted. In the present case, except the petitioner, no other person has made any claim for compensation. Accordingly, there is neither a dispute regarding title nor apportionment of compensation amount. Therefore, no issue has arisen before respondent No.2 for reference of the case for adjudication by t he Civil Court. As noted above, respondent No.2 failed to assign any plausible reason for such reference. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay compensation as ﬁxed by him under the award to the petitioner or her authorized representative without referring the case to the Civil Court as proposed by him in the award. The petitioner is permitted to approach respondent No.2 either in person or through her authorized representative with a representation and within one month from the date of receipt of such representation, the compensation amount shall be paid by respondent No.2. As a sequel, WPMP No.39349/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 8-12-2011 AM