The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.23345 of 2010 Date: 15-12-2011 Between: M.Sreeram Reddy ..... Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr.Ravindra Yanamandra, SC for HMDA Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following : Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in not paying compensation to the petitioner towards acquisition of land admeasuring 622.70 square yards in Survey No.77 of Madapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and referring the dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), vide award, dated 20-05-2010, as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that the above- mentioned extent of land was originally owned by one E.Mallaiah and respondent No.4; that the said land was sold by the original owners to Mohammed Samiuddin under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1003/89 and 1341/89; that the petitioner has purchased 333.33 square yards from out of the above-mentioned land comprised in plot No.31 with two rooms from Mohammed Samiuddin under registered sale deed bearing document No.6666/08 and another extent of 333.33 comprised in plot No.32 along with two rooms from the same vendor through his GPA under registered sale deed bearing document No.6390 of 2008. The petitioner, thus, asserted that he has become the lawful owner of the property in question. The respondents have proposed to acquire the said land by issuing notification, dated 28-06-2008, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification has shown E.Mallaiah and respondent No.4 as owners and pattadars of the said property. However, the petitioner has made his claim for payment of compensation before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 held award enquiry and passed the impugned award referring the dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. Hence, the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Sri Ravindra Yanamandra, learned Standing Counsel for Outer Ring Road Project, representing respondent No.3, and perused the record. Despite service of notice, respondent No.4 has not entered appearance. In the impugned award, respondent No.3 inter alia discussed the rival claims of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and rendered a categorical finding that E.Mallaiah, E.Ramulu, K.Pentaiah, K.Balaiah, K.Venkataiah and respondent No.4, who were original owners and pattadars of 333.33 square yards of land in Plot No.31 in Survey No.77 of Madhapur Village, have sold the same to Mrs.Syed Irfana Iffath, W/o.Sri Mohammad Shakeel Ahmed vide document No.1341/89, dated 04-02-1989; that Syed Irfana Iffath has sold the said land to the petitioner through her GPA holder Mohammed Samiuddin, S/o.late Shaik Meeran vide document No.6666/08, dated 21-06-2008; that E.Mallaiah, S/o.Pedda Eraiah, Erani Ramulu, S/o.Pedda Eeraiah, Kondakalla Pentaiah, S/o.K.Pedda Mallaiah, Kondakalla Balaiah, S/o.Chinna Mallaiah, Kondakala Venkaiah, S/o.Pedda Maisaiah, have sold another extent of 333.33 square yards of land in Plot No.32 in Survey No.77 of Madhapur (V) to Sri Mohammad Samiuddin vide document No.1003/1989, dated 28-01-1989, and subsequently, Mohd.Samiuddin sold the same through his GPA holder Sri Saranala Sreedahar Rao, S/o.Babu Rao to the petitioner vide document No.6390/08, dated 13-07- 2008. He further found that the field inspection of the said land along with the surveyors revealed that the petitioner was in possession of 447 square yards of land in Plot Nos.31 and 32 of Survey No.77 of Madhapur Village; that an extent of 12.55 square yards is covered by existing lay out roads and hence, no compensation is awarded in respect of the said 12.55 square yards. Respondent No.3 further held that respondent No.4, having sold the subject property, has lost his title. In short, respondent No.3 upheld the claim of the petitioner and rejected the claim of respondent No.4 regarding title over the acquired land. Having rendered such findings referred to above, in unequivocal terms, respondent No.3, quite curiously, referred the dispute to the civil Court on the ground that a dispute regarding the title of the subject property has arisen between the petitioner and respondent No.4. In my opinion, respondent No.3 committed a serious legal flaw in observing that a title dispute still subsists, requiring adjudication by the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. This approach of respondent No.3 is, absolutely, unsustainable. Under Section 30 of the Act, respondent No.3 is vested with the discretion to decide the title dispute or refer the same to the civil Court. Having ventured to examine the respective claims of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and rendered categorical finding in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.3 ought not to have again referred the dispute to the Civil Court. It is only respondent No.4, who should have sought for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act, if he felt aggrieved by the award passed by respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, the impugned award to the extent of referring the dispute to the civil Court is set aside. On the findings rendered by respondent No.3, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation. Respondent No.3 is directed to wait for a period of two months from today to enable respondent No.4 to seek reference of the dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 (2) of the Act. If no such request is made by respondent No.4 within the above stipulated period, respondent No.3 shall pay compensation to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, WPMP.No.29865 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 15th December, 2011 LUR