IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8260 of 2004 Between: Smt.Badi Khajamma and another. … Petitioners And Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, PJP Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition for R.1. G.Venkat Reddy for R.2 & R.5. None for R.3 and R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in passing the award in respect of the land in Survey No.420 of Rajoli village, Waddepalli Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, without referring the matter to the competent civil Court as envisaged under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), as illegal and void. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to refer the matter to the competent civil Court. Heard Sri Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent No.1; Sri G.Venkat Reddy, counsel representing Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 5; and perused the record. The dispute pertains to 2/8th share of land admeasuring 18.19 guntas in Survey No.420 of Rajoli village, Waddepalli Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, which was acquired consequent on submergence of foreshore area of the Tungabhadra barrage. The petitioners claimed that the said land originally belonged to the husband of petitioner No.1-late Sri Kalukara Kamal Saab and that after his demise petitioner No.1 left Rajoli village and is living with her daughter-petitioner No.2 in Kurnool. The case of the petitioner No.1 is that without any notice to her and petitioner No.2, her three sons appeared to have executed nominal sale deeds in favour of respondents 2 to 5. The petitioners further averred that on the basis of the said nominal sale deeds when respondents 2 to 5 made a claim for compensation, they sent a notice to respondent No.1 claiming 2/8th share of compensation over the said land. As respondent No.1 passed award on 29-5-2003 in favour of respondents 2 to 5, without referring the dispute to the competent civil Court, they filed the present Writ Petition. A perusal of award shows that respondent No.1 has referred to the revenue record, which contains the names of respondents 2 to 5 as the pattadars. Respondent No.1 also considered the claims of the petitioners and came to the conclusion that the land in Survey No.420 was sold by the three sons of petitioner No.1 in the year 1978 under various sale deeds executed on 28-1-1978; and that since 1978 the vendees were cultivating the lands for nearly 25 years without anyone making a claim over the said land either in the civil Court or in the revenue Court. On this premise, respondent No.1 passed award in favour of respondents 2 to 5. Under Section 30 of the Act, when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. Under Section 18 of the Act any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. A close analysis of these two provisions reveals that Section 30 vests discretion in the Collector to refer to the civil Court if he is of the view that a dispute arises, whereas under Section 18 any person interested, who has not accepted the award, has a right to seek reference of the dispute which includes the dispute pertaining to the persons to whom the compensation is payable. In the award, respondent No.1 was satisﬁed on the basis of the revenue record that respondents 2 to 5 - who purchased the property under registered sale deeds, are in possession of the same since the year 1978 and whose names were mutated in the record of rights as pattadars - are entitled to receive compensation. Thus, respondent No.1 has exercised his discretion on the basis of the record and was not convinced that any dispute as to the apportionment has arisen necessitating reference to the civil Court. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the said award, it would have been open to them to avail the remedy under Section 18 within the time prescribed to seek reference. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have invoked the said provision. Be that as it may, the petitioners ﬁled O.S.No.82 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Alampur, Mahabubnagar district, for partition of 2/8th share in the property in question. Subsequently, they ﬁled an application for amendment of the prayer, which was rejected by the trial Court; but the revision ﬁled by them in CRP No.2620 of 2005 was allowed by this Court on 30-9-2005 and the petitioners were permitted to seek the relief of declaration that the sale deeds executed by the sons of petitioner No.1 in favour of respondents 2 to 5 are nominal and invalid to the extent of 2/8th share of the petitioners. The Civil suit is admittedly pending. If the petitioners succeed in the said civil suit, they are entitled to recover their share of compensation from respondents 2 to 5. In this view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any reason to grant the relief claimed by the petitioners in this Writ Petition. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:05-08-2008 MNR