IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18886 of 2008 Between: Kalluri Pedda Obul Reddy S/o. Chinna Konda Reddy R/o. Obannapeta Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition GNSS (Galerunagari Sujala Sravanthi Project) Muddanuru Village, Kadapa District. 2 The Special Collector, Galerunagari Sujala Sravanthi Project 3 Kalluri Chinna Obul Reddy S/o. Chinna Konda Reddy R/o. Obannapeta Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 Kalluri Nagireddy S/o. Chinna Konda Reddy R/o. Obannapeta Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in considering the objections of the Petitioner with regard to the payment of Compensation for the property bearing Door No. 1/31 and 1/32 shown at Serial Numbers 16 and 17 with house numbers 21 and 22 of Obannapeta Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Kadapa District and in not permitting the petitioner to participate in the enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, irregular, arbitrary violative of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1984, unjust and unsustainable and direct the respondents to forthwith permit the petitioner to participate in such enquiry and consider all his objections and consequently pay the compensation to the petitioner with respect to the above said house and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The second respondent issued a notiﬁcation, dated 17.11.2007, proposing to acquire various extents of land and structures for the purpose of Gandikota Project, Kadapa District. The petitioner states that himself and respondents 3 and 4 constitute a joint family and certain items of property belonging to the joint family were also notified. His grievance is that in the award enquiry, the ﬁrst respondent is receiving the claims of respondents 3 and 4 alone, for compensation and not entertaining his claim. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the ﬁrst respondent. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) prescribes the procedure to be followed in the award enquiry. Wherever there exists any title dispute, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the civil Court. There is nothing on record to disclose that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent. Be that as it may, the ﬁrst respondent cannot refuse to take the claim made by the petitioner into account. Ultimately, it is for the concerned parties to work out their remedies in the civil Court, in the event of there being any dispute. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the ﬁrst respondent to take into account the claim of the petitioner also before passing any award, in case it has not been passed as yet. This, however, shall not be treated as adjudication of the entitlement of the petitioner, or other persons, to be paid the compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.01.09.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ