THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.15657 of 2011 Dated 03rd November, 2011 Between: M/s.Monodone Aqua Firms Private Limited …Petitioner And The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: Mrs.S.Nanda The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in seeking to pay compensation to respondent Nos.3 to 5 over an extent of Acs.18.59 cents of land belonging to the petitioner, in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, and not referring the dispute to the competent civil Court as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to pay compensation to respondent Nos.3 to 5. This Court by order, dated 10.06.2011, directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to pay compensation to respondent Nos.3 to 5 in respect of the above-mentioned land. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 & 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that in obedience to the order of this Court and in view of the rival claims made by the parties, the dispute is referred to the civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act to the competent civil Court. With regard to grievance of the petitioner pertaining to reference of the dispute, with the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the dispute is already referred, his grievance stands abated. However, Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has strongly submitted that there is absolutely no dispute between the petitioner and his client and that the petitioner has unnecessarily subjected the land of respondent No.3 to dispute leading to reference. The learned counsel requested that the decision of respondent No.2 to the extent of reference of dispute relating to Acs.18.00 in Survey No.535/2 may be reversed. In my opinion, this request of the learned counsel cannot be accepted because such an order cannot be passed in the writ petition filed by his adversary. If respondent No.3 feels aggrieved by the reference of dispute to the extent of Acs.18.00 over which respondent No.3 is claiming title and right to receive compensation, he can only approach appropriate Court by availing legal remedy available to him in order to question the decision of respondent No.2 to refer the dispute to the competent civil Court. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 10.06.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.18763 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.Nos.2715 and 3404 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd November, 2011 VGB