IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25526 of 2011 Between: D. Kishan Rao … Petitioner And The Collector, Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Damodar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25526 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s application, dated 29.08.2011, submitted for reference of the dispute relating to enhancement of compensation to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the 1894 Act”) as illegal and arbitrary. This Writ Petition is ﬁled on the premise that the petitioner’s lands admeasuring Ac.0.12 ½ guntas in Sy.No.488/2 and Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.490 of Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District, were acquired under the provisions of the 1894 Act. The petitioner accordingly sought for a direction to refer the dispute relating to enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the 1894 Act to the competent civil Court. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s lands were acquired for widening of National Highway No.7 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the 1956 Act”) and that an award was passed as far back as 18.01.2007. She further stated that there is no provision for reference to civil Court under the 1956 Act unlike under the 1894 Act and that the petitioner can only seek reference of the dispute for arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the said Act. This submission is not opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act. As a sequel, WPMP.No.31431 of 2011 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.12.2011 ES