THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3490 of 2011 ORDER: An extent of Acs.3.05 cents of land in Survey No.757/5 of Ramaiahpeta, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District was acquired by the Government for the purpose of an irrigation project. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and declaration under Section 6 of that Act were published. In the award enquiry, respondent No.3 made claim for that land and an award was passed in his favour. Compensation was also paid to him. Claiming that the land belongs to him, the petitioner made a representation before the Land Acquisition Officer, respondent No.2 herein. Acting on the representation, respondent No.2 issued proceedings, dated 15.06.2010, requiring respondent No.3 and others to appear before him together with connected records on 22.06.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 did not take any further steps and seeks directions to him to take necessary action. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Respondent No.2 passed an award in respect of various items of land including the one in Survey No.757/5. Taking into account the claim submitted by respondent No.3, he paid compensation to him. If the petitioner had any interest or right over the land, he ought to have taken part in the award enquiry. There would have been occasion for respondent No.2 either to express prima facie view or to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act in the event of there being rival claims. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 much after the award was passed. It hardly needs any mention that a Land Acquisition Officer becomes functus officio, once he passes an award. He cannot reopen the same and require the persons who received the compensation for land, to appear before him, for determination of the claim. The very proceedings issued by respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction. This Court cannot compel him to take further action on the basis of such invalid proceedings. If the petitioner is so advised, he can file a suit against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and take necessary steps in accordance law. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07.04.2011. kdl