THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.8006 of 2007 Dated 30th June, 2011 Between: Putti Sarojini …Petitioner And Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Paloncha, Khammam District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Kowturi Vinay Kumar 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 entertainment of O.S.No.40 of 2007 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam as without jurisdiction and consequently set aside order, dated 08.03.2007, in I.A.No.21 of 2007 in O.S.No.40 of 2007. At the hearing, Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 filed the above-mentioned suit in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam raising a dispute relating to apportionment of compensation to her and the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the said Court per se lacks jurisdiction in view of underlying scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), which envisages reference of such dispute to the competent civil Court under Sections 18, 30 and 31 of the Act. Though this submission of the learned counsel appears to be prima facie correct, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has adequate remedies available under the CPC for non-suiting respondent No.2. These remedies include filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. Therefore, I decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as the petitioner is left with effective alternative remedy. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. If the petitioner approaches the Mobile Court, in which the suit is pending, with appropriate application I have no doubt in my mind that the latter will dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10286 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th June, 2011 VGB