THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26634 of 2007 Dated 21st June, 2011 Between: Nuthakki Nageswara rao and others …Petitioners And Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary (Social Welfare Department), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Krishna Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri S.Srinivas Reddy 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. The writ petition was originally filed for invalidation of notification, dated 30.04.2007, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. However, having regard to the averments contained in the affidavit filed by the Assistant Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Vijayawada Division, Krishna District, wherein it was stated that an award was passed as far back as 17.11.2007, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ petition in order to challenge the award itself. This application was ordered today. As per the amended prayer, the petitioners have sought for invalidation of all the land acquisition proceedings including the award. Having carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. Admittedly by the time the award was passed, an ex parte decree granted in favour of respondent No.4 declaring its title over the acquired land was in force. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said decree was set aside subsequently i.e., on 04.01.2008, which fact was not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Since the award was passed on the ex parte decree, which as noted above was subsequently set aside, it would be in the interests of justice that the dispute relating to title between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other needs to be resolved by the competent civil Court. Instead of driving the petitioners to file separate application under Section 18 of the Act for reference of the dispute under Section 30 of the Act to the competent civil Court, it would be appropriate that respondent No.2 refers the title dispute to the competent civil Court. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to refer the dispute relating to title over the land admeasuring Acs.9.54 cents in Survey No.162/1A of Kondapalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District covered by award, dated 17.11.2007, to the competent civil Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil Court shall on such reference decide the same without insisting on deposit of the award amount. The petitioners are entitled to work out their right over the awarded amount depending upon the result of the adjudication of the title and interest by the competent civil Court. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 19.03.2008, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.34762 of 2007, 14441 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.4285 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st June, 2011 VGB