THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT APPEAL No.1467 of 2009 Dated:21.12.2009 Between: Pelluru Peddamunu Swamy, And another. …Appellants and The District Collector, Chittoor District, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT APPEAL No.1467 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appellants are brothers. They statedly own land admeasuring 6.34 cents situated at Changambakam Village of Satyavedu Mandal in Chittoor District. The land was proposed for acquisition for establishment of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for Industrial Park by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. After receiving requisition from the acquiring department, a notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), was issued followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. We need not go into the details of the extents of land. Suffice to mention that statedly the names of the appellants were mentioned in the notification as well as the declaration, but respondent Nos.4 to 24 herein were shown as enjoyers. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted. Be that as it is, when the appellants did not receive notices for the award enquiry, they submitted an application on 28.01.2007 to the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)-second respondent herein, inter alia, alleging that they have joint rights and possession in the land comprised in survey Nos.5, 13, 14 and 16. On an apprehension that the same was not being considered, and that an award under Section 11 of the Act is likely to be passed, they filed the writ petition, being W.P.No.3446 of 2007, praying for the following relief. Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not conducting any enquiry and not passing any orders on the petitioner filed by the petitioners on 28.01.2007 with regard to the ownership of the petitioner schedule lands and payment of compensation as illegal, arbitrary, and against the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry. The Writ petition was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that the appellants did not participate in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, that after completion of award enquiry, instigated by the litigant villagers they sent a petition on 03.03.2007 and that the same was not considered for those reasons. After considering the rival contentions the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in the following manner. Under those circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the aspect as to whether the father or grandfather of the petitioners was shown as pattadar in the revenue records in relation to subject lands and if they are found to be pattadars in the revenue records, to conduct appropriate enquiry and decide as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation and to initiate further action as required under the law. Further, the 2nd respondent may be suitably advised in this regard not to repeat such hasty steps in a matter of granting compensation in favour of individual landholders. In this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that when the appellants made petition objecting to passing of the award in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 24 it was bounden duty of the LAO to have desisted from passing of award and considered rival claims. In case there is a dispute regarding the entitlement, right and title, land acquired, the learned Counsel would urge that it was incumbent on the part of LAO to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act to the civil Court. He placed reliance on Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple, Singirigudi v Union of India[1]. These contentions are refuted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In the counter affidavit adverting to the allegation of the appellants in the writ affidavit that they sent a petition on 28.01.2007 the second respondent states as below. In reply to the Para 7 of affidavit it is to submit that it is a fact that on 5.3.2007 a representation was filed before the Land Acquisition Officer signed by the Advocate Petitioner on 3.3.2007 and not on 28.1.2007 as mentioned in the affidavit without producing any documentary evidence in support of his title over the subject lands. After completion of award enquiry it seems under the instigation of some litigants in the village the representation was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. Hence the petitioner’s representation was not considered. Hence the award was passed taking into consideration of the enjoyment on ground and no rival claims were made before the Land Acquisition Officer during the award enquiry. From the above averments it is clear that even before LAO passed award on 18.03.2007 the notice sent by the appellants through their Counsel on 03.03.2007 was available. Therefore, things would have been better if it was considered by the LAO before arriving at a decision as to whether respondent Nos.4 to 24 are entitled to receive the compensation for the land acquired. It was also open to the LAO to refer the title dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act if there are complicated questions involved therein. The award was passed on 18.03.2007 while the matter was pending before this Court presumably for the reason that this Court did not pass any interim orders staying the passing of the award though the appellants made such a prayer in the writ petition. Therefore, the passing of award by the LAO cannot be faulted as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. I n Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple (supra) dealing with a case involving somewhat similar facts, the apex Court held that even if the award is passed the matter has to be referred to the civil Court to decide the inter se title to receive the compensation. The relevant observations are as follows. …The Land Acquisition Officer has to determine the extent of the land, the persons entitled to compensation and the compensation to be determined under Section 23(1) of the Act. If he finds that there is any dispute as to the person entitled to receive the compensation, necessarily he has to deposit the amount under Section 31 of the Act into the Court to which reference would lie. On such a dispute having arisen, he has to make a reference to the court under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute between the competing persons who set up rival title to the compensation. Under those circumstances, the only legal course open is that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 30 to decide the inter se title to receive the compensation either by the appellant or by the fourth respondent, as the case may be and the Reference Court would decide the matter in accordance with law. The decision of the Supreme Court appears to have been not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Be that as it is, though we are not inclined to interfere with the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge we only modify directing that LAO should forthwith refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act to decide the reference as to whether the appellants herein or respondent Nos.4 to 24 are entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.6.34 cents in survey Nos.5, 13, 14 and 16. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 21.12.2009 Note: Issue C.C in ten days. B/o. vs [1] (1996) 6 SCC 408