IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 7654 of 2008 Between: Ravula Venkataiah, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Pallur Village, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer -Cum- Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Bhadrachalam Unit, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Tahsildar, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Yerukonda Bhadramma, W/o. Muthaiah, R/o. Pallur Village, Marrigudem, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District. 4 The State Bank of India, Tekulaboru Branch, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District, Rep. by its Manager. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not referring the matter to Civil Court U/Sec. 30 of Land Acquisition Act in spite of the Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner, the 1st respondent paid the land acquisition amount in favour of the respondent No.3 by way of cheque drawn through 4th respondent Bank in respect of petitioner's land in question in Sy.No. 61/2 to an extent of Hc.0-83 Acres in Sy.NO. 61/3 to an extent of Hc. 0-20 Acres of Marrigudem Village of Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District is illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14, 19 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the 4th respondent to return the cheque in question, and the 1st respondent may refer the matter to Civil Court by depositing the compensation amount in respect of the Petitioner's land in question. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) in spite of the Claim Petition filed by the petitioner, and the 1st respondent depositing compensation in favour of the 3rd respondent by way of a cheque, in the 4th respondent-Bank in respect of the petitioner’s land of an extent of Ac.0.83 cents in S.No.61/2 and Ac.0.20 cents in S.No.61/3 situated in Marrigudem village, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently, direct the 4th respondent to return the cheque and also direct the 1st respondent to refer the matter to Civil Court. The petitioner asserts that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.83 cents of land in S.No.61/2 and Ac.0.20 cents in S.No.61/3, which are his ancestral properties, and the then Settlement Officer granted pattas and his name is recorded in the revenue records. Because of the discrepancy in the orders passed by the then Settlement Officer, the revenue authorities recorded the 3rd respondent’s name in Phani. When the 1st respondent-Land Acquisition officer acquired the lands in question by initiating land acquisition proceedings, for the purpose of Indira Sagar Project, both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent made their representations claiming compensation for the lands in question. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that though the petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands in question, the 1st respondent, without considering his representation dated 2.2.2008, deposited the amount in the 4th respondent-Bank, by way of a cheque, towards compensation in favour of the 3rd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Section 30 of the Act deals with regard to apportionment of compensation and the disputes if any arises in respect of it. According to this provision, as and when there is a genuine dispute, it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to a competent Civil Court for redressal of such dispute. In the light of this provision, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent-Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector to look into the petitioner’s representation dated 2.2.2008, and if ultimately, he is satisfied that there is a genuine dispute with regard to the compensation, he may refer the matter to a competent Civil Court as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act. Till such decision is taken, the 1st respondent shall not disburse the compensation to anybody. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 09.04.2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s cost. B/o bcj