THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19936 of 2008 ORDER: The District Collector, Hyderabad, published a notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), proposing to acquire 2990 square yards of land in Ward No.166, Block-A, of Hyderabad, for the purpose of construction of a bridge across Moosi River, between Golnaka and Malakpet. On the next day itself, the declaration under Section 6 was published, dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The notiﬁcations were published in, one Telugu Daily, and one English Daily, two days after the publication in the gazette. Award inquiry was taken up, and notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 were issued, inviting claims. The respondents 2 to 5 submitted their claims for an extent of 1948 sq. yards in T.S.No.8/2. The Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent herein, passed an Award dated 29-01-2008. He determined the market value and the entitlement of the claims. The claim of the respondents 2 to 5 was accepted for the land in T.S.No.8/2. Petitioners claim that the land in T.S.No.8/2 was originally owned by Mr. Siddi Hussain and his brothers, and that the petitioners; respondents 2 to 5, and certain others are the legal descendants of the original owner. They plead that not being conversant with Telugu and English languages, they did not notice the notiﬁcations, issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act, or the subsequent proceedings, and that soon after coming to know about the fact, that the land is being acquired, they made a representation to the 1st respondent on 07-03-2008, and complain that the amount is being disbursed, without taking their claims into account. On behalf of the respondents 2 to 5, a counter- aﬃdavit is ﬁled, opposing the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that they have placed voluminous documentary evidence before the 1st respondent, in proof of their claim, and that on being satisﬁed about it, the latter awarded compensation. They contend that the petitioners do not even have a semblance of claim, or right over the acquired property, and that once an award is passed, the 1st respondent becomes functus officio. Heard Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent No.1, and Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5. The land in question was acquired for a public purpose, and having regard to the urgency in the matter, inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Though some eﬀort was made by the petitioners, to assail the draft notiﬁcation and draft declaration, this Court ﬁnds it diﬃcult to deal with the same, in view of the fact that the Award has already been passed. Totally, diﬀerent things would have ensured, had the petitioners responded and submitted their claims before the 1st respondent. It is not even alleged that the petitioners have ever approached the 1st respondent, during the Award inquiry. This Court cannot delve into the disputes of title, between the petitioners, on the one hand, and respondents 2 to 5, on the other hand. For that matter, even the 1st respondent could not have undertaken such adjudication. There would have been a possibility for the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court, had the claim been made by the petitioners, before the Award was passed. With the Award having been passed, the 1st respondent becomes functus oﬃcio, and he just cannot touch the Award. The only alternative for the petitioners is to establish the rights, vis-à-vis the land, in a Civil Court. Before the amount could be disbursed, this Court granted interim stay. This Court is of the view, that the ends of justice would be met, if the disbursement is stayed for a further period of four weeks, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in Civil Court. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies by ﬁling a Civil Suit, vis-à-vis the land, referred to above, duly impleading the respondents 2 to 5; and the 1st respondent is directed not to disburse the compensation to respondents 2 to 5, under the Award dated 29-01-2008, for a period of four weeks, from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12-09-2008. KO