THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28409 of 2010 Dated 20th December, 2011 Between: C.Raju Chouhan …Petitioner And The Special Deputy Collector, LA Wing No.2, Outer Ring Road Project, HUDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in passing any order on the claim/representation of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Plot bearing No.124 admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Survey Nos.22 and 23 of Bongloor Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was acquired under Outer Ring Road Project. A consent award was passed by the Lok Adalat, wherein allotment of alternative plot in lieu of payment of compensation was made in favour of one person by name Smt.M.Navaneeta. The petitioner who did not participate in the enquiry held under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) approached the respondent with a representation that he purchased the property from one G.Rama Devi, who was the vendee from the original pattadar and that having sold the property in favour of his vendor, the pattadar has again sold the same to one Smt.M.Navaneeta. The petitioner, therefore, sought for review of the decision to allot alternative land in favour of said Smt.M.Navaneeta by allotting the land to him. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though notice of enquiry was issued by the respondent, no further steps were taken on the ground that Smt.M.Navaneeta failed to appear before him. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein it is inter alia stated that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, for passing consent awards in case of persons who are willing to accept the terms and conditions mentioned therein, that as per the said G.O., Smt.M.Navaneeta has submitted her consent for allotment of 100 sq.yards of land in lieu of payment of compensation, that the consent was verified with the sale deed copy and encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam Village and that the encumbrance certificate has shown two sale transactions pertaining to plot No.124 of Survey Nos.22 and 23, but the boundaries of the plot were different. It is further averred that the consent proposals were submitted to the Project Director and Special Collector and the same were approved. That the consent award was passed through Lok Adalat and the letter of provisional assessment of plot in favour of Smt.M.Navaneeta was issued vide PLC No.708, dated 06.07.2007. It is also stated that after receipt of the petitioner’s representation, a notice was issued to both the parties asking them to attend before the Special Deputy Collector on 14.09.2009 at 11.30 am for enquiry into the matter, and that while the petitioner has attended the office, Smt.M.Navaneeta has not presented herself. It is also stated that the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat by the respondent through his letter, dated 17.12.2009, for further course of action and that the same is pending. In ordinary course, if there is a dispute regarding title, the person who is aggrieved by the award is entitled to seek reference of the dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. In the instant case, a consent award was passed by the Lok Adalat. Once the award is passed, Lok Adalat becomes functus officio, unless it is established before the Lok Adalat that the award was obtained by playing fraud. Even as per the petitioner’s version Smt.M.Navaneeta is the purchaser of the property from the original pattadar, while he claims to have got title through the vendee from the original purchaser. If at all it is the original pattadar, who played fraud and not Smt.M.Navaneeta. From the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner, it is clear that it is purely in the nature of inter se title dispute, which needs to be resolved by the competent civil Court. Had the petitioner been diligent enough, he should have made his claim before the respondent in the award enquiry. Due to his failure to make such claim, a consent award came to be passed in favour of Smt.M.Navaneeta, who is not even impleaded to this writ proceeding. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that no direction can be issued to the respondent to take any further steps. The petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of civil suit for declaration of his title and claim compensation. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36239 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th December, 2011 VGB