THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2859 of 2007 Date: 12.02.2008 Between: Smt.K.Meena … Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., Rep by Secretary, Revenue Department (LA), Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: A.G.P. for Land Acquisition HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.M.P.No.3674 of 2007 and WRIT PETITION No.2859 of 2007 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of all the learned counsel for the parties. In the view I am taking there is no need to go in detail into the facts of the case. Suffice it to state that an extent of Ac.12.55 cents of land comprised in survey No.394 of Chagadona village, Ghattu Mandal, Mahboobnagar district was acquired by notification dated 31.3.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). A consent award was passed on 31.7.2006 in respect of Ac.7.55 cents of land and amounts were paid to respondent Nos.6 and 7. Since the dispute existed between respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the one hand and respondent No.8 on the other, respondent No.4 did not pass an award in respect of balance extent of 5 acres of land. The petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming that she is the widow of late K.Shankar Rao, who was the son of Devappa and that therefore, she is entitled to a share in the compensation. With regard to the award already passed, it is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to file her objections and make a request for reference under section 30 of the Act before the award was passed covering Ac.7.55 cents. I am therefore, of the view that the petitioner’s request for reference after the award was passed and compensation was disbursed among respondent Nos.6 and 7 is too belated to be entertained. The prayer of the petitioner to this extent is rejected. As regards her claim for reference of dispute under Section 30 of the Act, it is admitted that in respect of the balance extent of 5 acres of land award has been passed on 25.6.2007, but in view of the disputes between respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the one hand and respondent No.8 on the other, the same was referred to Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal and registered as O.P.No.76 of 2007. With regard to the claim of the petitioner, as admittedly she made her request before the award was passed and the further fact that already there was reference of dispute between respondent Nos.6 and 7 and respondent No.8, I deem it appropriate that the claim of the petitioner also be referred to civil Court. Respondent No.4 is directed to take appropriate steps to implead the petitioner as a party to the pending O.P., i.e., O.P.No.76 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadal shall consider the claim of the petitioner also while deciding the O.P.No.76 of 2007. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3674 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:12.02.2008 mdaa