HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.20907 of 2010 Date : 3-12-2011 Between: Surpam Badhu .. Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer, (for Sonapur Irrigation Project New Tank), -cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Utnoor, Adilabad District and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri S. Chandra Sekhar Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.2 : Ms.P. Lakshmi for Sri S. Lakshma Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to pay half of the compensation for the acquired land of Ac.7.33 guntas in Sy.No.52 of Sonapur village, Wankidi Mandal, Adilabad District, to the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are children of sisters. They are claiming the above mentioned land through a common ancestor who was its original owner, in respect of which the petitioner is claiming a share in compensation. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he ﬁled a claim petition before respondent No.1 for payment of compensation for acquisition of the said land for the purpose of construction of the Sonapur Irrigation project, New Tank. Feeling aggrieved by non-payment of compensation after determining the same at Rs.7,32,500/-, the petitioner ﬁled the present Writ Petition. Respondent No.2 ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit wherein he stated that the acquired land belongs to him and that the petitioner has no right to receive any share in the compensation in respect of the said land. No counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, stated that respondent No.1 has decided the dispute relating to the person who is entitled to receive the compensation in favour of respondent No.2 and accordingly passed an award on 22-6-2010. She further stated that the compensation has not been paid to respondent No.2 so far. Under the provisions of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. The Collector is thus vested with the discretion either to settle the dispute or refer the same to the Civil Court. Under Section 18 of the Act, any person interested who has not accepted the award is entitled to make an application to the Collector in writing seeking reference of the dispute to the Civil Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Thus, under the scheme of the Act, it is evident that in case where the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer decides the dispute, the aggrieved party is entitled to seek reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Oﬃcer [1] held that where there is a dispute relating to right to receive the compensation, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer shall wait for expiry of the statutory period under Section 18 of the Act without disbursing the compensation amount to the person in whose favour the award is passed and that if the aggrieved party makes an application under Section 18 within the prescribed time, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer is bound to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 r/w. Section 30 of the Act by depositing the compensation amount in the Civil Court for eventual adjudication of the dispute by the Court. In view of this settled legal position, respondent No.1 is directed to serve a copy of the award on the petitioner to enable him to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. Respondent No.1 shall not pay the compensation to respondent No.2 till expiry of the statutory period under Section 18(2) of the Act. If before the expiry of the statutory period, the petitioner makes an application for reference, respondent No.1 shall refer the same to the competent Civil Court and deposit the compensation amount before the said Court. Conversely, if no such application is made, respondent No.1 shall be free to pay the compensation to respondent No.2. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order dated 23-8-2010 is vacated and WPMP No.26585/2010 and WVMP No.5646/2010 are disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 3-12-2011 AM [1] 1991(1) ALT 176