IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12079 of 2004 Between: M/s Blooming Buds Exports Ltd. a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with its registered Office at 3-6-540/C, Saraswathi Chambers, Street No.7, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. rep.by its Executive Director, Sri D.P.Agarwal, S/o Late Giridhari Lal Agarwal, aged 40 years ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Special Dy.Collector- cum-Acquisition Officer, International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad 2 The Special Dy.Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. SRIKANTH KAVETI FOR MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the compensation amount in terms of award, dated 21.09.2002 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.35 guntas in Survey No.6 of Ananthareddyguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Heard Sri Srikanth Kaveti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that at the request of rival claimants for compensation, respondent No.2 referred the dispute to the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and the said reference is taken on file as O.P.No.48 of 2007 and that the same is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this fact. He, however, submitted that when an award was already passed, it was not permissible for respondent No.2 to refer the dispute to the civil Court. Having regard to the fact that the relief claimed in this writ petition is limited to payment of compensation, the question whether reference of the dispute to the civil Court is valid or not need not be and cannot be gone into in this writ petition. Since reference has already been made under Section 30 of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in this writ petition. Therefore, by dismissing the writ petition, liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to question the validity of reference, if it so chooses. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.15351 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 11th June, 2008. kvni