IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.9740 of 2000 Between: The Project Officer, The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Bhupalpalli Area, Warangal District … Petitioner And Kunamalla Ramulu (died) per LRs., Kunamalla Sammaiah and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri E.V.Suresh Kumar for Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy. Counsel for the respondents: None for R.1 to R.10. AGP for Land Acquisition for R.11. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash award dated 16-8-1999 passed in O.P.No.38 of 1990 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Heard Sri E.V.Suresh Kumar, counsel representing Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent No.11; and perused the record. Respondents 1 to 10, whose lands were acquired for the purpose of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, got the dispute regarding fixation of compensation referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, which was registered as O.P.No.38 of 1990. The reference Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the market value of the land by fixing the same at Rs.38,500/- per acre. The said award has been questioned in this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioner, as reflected from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, is that it has not been made a party to the reference proceedings as it is the beneficiary and that the land acquisition officer alone has been shown as the respondent. In my considered view, if the petitioner, who is the beneficiary, felt aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation, the appropriate course left to it is to question the same by filing an appeal, with the leave of the Court, under Section 54 of the Act. The mere fact of the beneficiary being not impleaded cannot be a ground for the petitioner to file a Writ Petition while an effective statutory remedy of appeal is available to it. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this Writ Petition and is accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:09-2-2009 MNR