IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10336 of 2004 Between: Thota Padmavathi & others. … Petitioners AND The Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10336 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to make reference to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) in respect of Ac.2.06 guntas in Sy.No.3297 of Nizamabad Revenue Village, Nizamabad district while depositing the amount of compensation in civil Court. The averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition show that there is a dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and respondent No.2 on the other regarding right to receive compensation in respect of the abovementioned extent of land, which was admittedly acquired by respondent No.1. It is clear from the record that award was passed on 03.01.2004. The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 made a representation on 21.02.2004 to respondent No.1 for reference of dispute to a civil Court under Section 30 of the Act and that the same was not considered. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that after considering the various claims of the parties, respondent No.1 passed award for Rs.17,30,479/- including solatium, additional market value and interest in favour of respondent No.2 and paid the compensation of Rs.12,55,991/- through cheque and that the remaining amount of Rs.4,74,488/- is to be paid to respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 further stated that though petitioner No.1 made a representation on 21.02.2004 as no amount was awarded in their favour, he did not refer the dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The fact that substantial amount was paid to respondent No.2 has not been disputed by the petitioners. Under Section 30 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has a discretion either to pass an award in favour of a particular party or parties or if he feels that there is a bona ﬁde dispute, he is entitled to refer the dispute to the civil Court. In the instant case, on the basis of the material available before him, respondent No.1 has chosen the ﬁrst option. If the petitioners aggrieved by the said award, it would have been open to them to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act or ﬁle an independent civil suit against respondent No.2 for declaration of their right to receive compensation and recovery of the same from respondent No.2. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with liberty to the petitioners in terms of the observations made above. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.13116 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.08.2008 ES