THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27794 OF 2007 O R D E R: An extent of As.5-37 gts of land in Sy.No.72 of Murmura Village of Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District, was acquired for the purpose of an Irrigation Project. Notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was published on 27.9.2005. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 made claims for compensation. The petitioner is said to have filed O.S.No.99 of 2005, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, for partition of various items of properties, including the one that was acquired. In addition to that, he has approached this court, by ﬁling W.P.No.23721 of 2005. Petitioner contends that even while his prayer for referring the matter, under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, is pending, the 1st respondent passed an award dated 3.9.2007, stating that he is unable to make up his mind, in the matter of referring the matter under Section 30 of the Act. He contends that the 1st respondent did not discharge his statutory obligation. Respondents 3 to 5 ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, objecting to the prayer made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner does not have any claim vis-à- vis the acquired land. Heard Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, and Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner on the one hand, and respondents 3 to 5 on the other hand, made claims for payment of compensation for the acquired land. On his part, the petitioner ﬁled a suit and a writ petition, in this context. The notiﬁcation is in respect of various other extents of land. A common award was passed by the 1st respondent, on 3.9.2007. While he provided for payment of compensation to the other lands, he expressed his inability even to refer the mater under Section 30 of the Act, in respect of Acs.5-37 gts of land. However, he made a deposit. While the petitioner insists that the matter be referred to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, respondents 3 to 5 object to it. It hardly needs any mention that the 1st respondent cannot be expected to determine the claims of contesting parties. The mere existence of the rival claim is ample ground for him to make a reference to the Civil Court. Thought the 1st respondent was a bit wavering, when he passed an award on 3.9.2007, it is now represented that the reference has since been made to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. In view of this development, the grievance of the petitioner stands virtually redressed. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, to put forward their claims before the court, where the reference is pending, and the reference shall be disposed of, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 11th November 2008 PAN