The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.17382 of 2011 Date: 28-12-2011 Between: Jangalappa and 3 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, R&B Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for R&B Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not referring the dispute raised by the petitioners for adjudication by the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and also in not providing alternative plot as a rehabilitation measure as envisaged in proceedings No.G1/1553/2007, dated 29-01-2008, of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent Nos.2 and 3. The lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired under award, dated 11-01-2008. The petitioners submitted an application for reference of the dispute relating to quantum of compensation to the civil Court on 22-02-2008. As the said request has not been complied with by respondent No.3, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. Even though no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that notice, dated 11-01-2008, issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act was received by the petitioners on 22-01-2008; that the petitioners made an application for reference of the dispute to the civil Court on 22-02-2008. He has further stated that as there are competing claims with respect to the right to receive compensation, the dispute was referred to the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 30 of the Act and that the said reference is pending. From the above-noted admitted facts, it is evident that the petitioners’ application for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act was made within the time stipulated under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for reference of the dispute relating to quantum of compensation to the same Court in which the reference under Section 30 of the Act is pending. As regards the relief of provision of alternative plot, the petitioner placed reliance on proceedings, dated 29-01- 2008, of respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that during his inspection respondent No.2 has consulted the Vice- Chairman, Huda, who has consented to rehabilitate the persons, whose dwelling houses were affected/acquired for formation of P-7 road at Laxmiguda and Mailadevpalli Villages, and that therefore, allotment of a plot equivalent to the land lost in acquisition subject to a minimum extent of 60 square yards and maximum extent of 200 square yards in Airport Rehabilitation Colony, Shamshabad, was ordered to the persons, whose dwelling houses were affected. The petitioners have claimed that they have made representations on 29-02-2008 and 05-05-2011 and that respondent No.2 has not taken any steps to allot alternative plots. In the absence of any counter-affidavit, it is not possible for this Court to render any conclusive finding on this aspect. However, I feel it appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to take appropriate steps in this regard. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.3 to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to respondent No.2 to redress the petitioners’ grievance in relation to non-implementation of proceedings, dated 29-01- 2008, by taking appropriate measures for implementation of the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, WPMP.No.20896 of 2011, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 28th December, 2011 LUR