THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 2169 OF 2009 Dated: 17.08.2011 Between : Earla Bharathi … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., and 3 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 2169 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner’s father by name Madasu Venkata Narsaiah was the owner of Acs.8.33 guntas of land situated in survey Nos.17, 24, 89, 116, 239/AA and 270/AA of Chigurumamidi Village of Velerupadu Revenue Mandal, Khammam District. It is stated that by virtue of will, dated 23.03.1971, executed by the petitioner’s father during his lifetime, the petitioner along with her mother, the 4th respondent herein and other sisters had succeeded to the said property, which was subsequently acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) for submergence under the Indira Sagar Project at Polavaram. Pursuant thereto, when the award enquiry was taken up, a joint claim petition dated 01.12.2008 was filed by the petitioner, the 4th respondent as well as the other claimants. Alleging that the respondent No.3 was proceeding to pass an award in favour of the 4th respondent alone ignoring the claim of the petitioner and other claimants, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent, is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that in view of the dispute among the claimants with regard to the apportionment of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer had decided to refer the matter to the civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. However, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that after filing this writ petition, she along with her daughters had approached the 3rd respondent on 20.10.2010 and gave their consent for apportionment of the compensation amount in the ratio mentioned therein. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the consent given by the 4th respondent and other claimants, the 3rd respondent may be directed to pay the compensation as agreed between the claimants, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the matter has already been referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and it is numbered as LAOP No.16 of 2011. In the circumstances, it is for the parties to appear before the civil Court and it is not necessary to keep the writ petition pending any longer. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent to pursue the proceedings pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in LAOP.No.16 of 2011. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 17.08.2011 Ivd