SCTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23665 of 2006 Date: 08.02.2008 Between: M.Jyothiba … Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Utnoor, Adilabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23665 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to refer the petitioner’s claim for payment of compensation under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). An extent of Ac.13.16 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.43 of Bambara Village, Wankidi Mandal, Adilabad District was proposed to be acquired for formation of tank across local stream at Bambara Village. The petitioner, who claims to have interest in the said land, filed the present writ petition on the ground that though he made representations on 01.11.2006 and 04.11.2006, the respondents are seeking to pay the entire compensation amount to respondent No.6. The Revenue Divisional Officer – Land Acquisition Officer, Utnoor, Adilabad District filed a counter affidavit, in which, it is inter alia mentioned that the petitioner is not a pattedar and as per the revenue records, the subject land stands in the name of Smt. Gouthru Raju Bai, respondent No.6. In view of this, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to payment of compensation. It is further stated that the award enquiry was fixed for 19.10.2006 and during the said enquiry, no one has made any claim in respect of compensation payable for the said land and that no further enquiry was needed. Respondent No.6 also filed a counter affidavit, wherein she traced her title through gift deed, dated 09.02.1981 allegedly executed by her father Morle Buchya, who allegedly got the said property to his share in the partition taken place between himself and his brother. At the hearing, Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of respondent No.6 that there was a partition between her father and the father of the petitioner is not correct. According to him, no such partition had taken place and, therefore, the gift deed, on which, respondent No.6 is placing reliance did not convey any title to the property in dispute to respondent No.6. Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel for respondent No.6 joined issue with the learned counsel for the petitioner on the aspect of partition and reiterated the stand reflected in the counter affidavit of respondent No.6 that in the family partition, the property fell to the share of the father of respondent No.6 and he executed a registered gift deed in her favour. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that no award has been passed as yet. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that at the time of passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer shall decide as to who is entitled to receive compensation and if there is more than one person entitled to receive compensation, the ratio, in which the compensation is required to be apportioned. In view of serious dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6 on the entitlement of compensation, the same is required to be resolved by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the basis of the evidence produced by the petitioner and respondent No.6, if the Land Acquisition Officer is satisfied that there is a genuine dispute regarding entitlement of the compensation, he is bound to refer such dispute to the competent civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. If, however, the Land Acquisition Officer is satisfied on the material placed that the claim of the petitioner is without any basis, there is no need for him to make reference to the civil Court. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 shall give an opportunity of filing the respective claims of petitioner and respondent No.6 and hear them on their entitlement to receive compensation. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni