IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6657 of 1997 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.GOPALA KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6657 of 1997 ORDER: The petitioner claims to have purchased, along with his brothers, diﬀerent extents of land by way of registered sale deeds from the third respondent. These lands were acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that, since the property was not mutated in their names and the revenue records continued to show the name of the 3rd respondent as the pattedar, an award was passed in his favour. Apprehending that the said amount would be disbursed to the 3rd respondent, though he did not have any title over the said property, the petitioner invoked this Court’s jurisdiction and this Court, by order dated 24.04.1997, observed that, if no construction had already been put up, the respondents should not commence construction till 30.04.1997. The interim order was extended periodically till 01.07.2007 and does not seems to have been extended thereafter. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. However, no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the unoﬃcial respondents 3 to 5. The counter aﬃdavit as ﬁled does not also disclose whether the amount payable pursuant to the award was paid to the 3rd respondent or not. The interim order of this Court did not also preclude respondents 1 and 2 from paying the compensation to the 3rd respondent. Sri G.Pramod, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that under Section 31of the Land Acquisition Act, if there is a dispute on the question of title of the property, the District Collector is empowered to deposit the amount payable under the award before the Court competent to hear a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 is silent with regards payment of compensation, it is evident that the compensation amount has not been disbursed as yet. He would state that the petitioner has already ﬁled a detailed representation on 03.03.1997 to the District Collector claiming compensation. Neither the petitioner herein nor the Government Pleader nor Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the unoﬃcial respondent, are in a position to state as to whether the amount under the award has been disbursed to the unoﬃcial respondent. It is only, if the said amount has not been disbursed, would the question of examining the petitioner’s request in terms of section 31 of the Act, arise. I deem it appropriate, therefore, to permit the petitioner to submit a representation afresh to the District Collector (1st respondent) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enclosing thereto copies of registered sale deeds etc, and requesting the latter to exercise his powers under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. In case, the amount under the award has not been disbursed already, the 1 st respondent shall examine such a representation and pass a reasoned order thereupon, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________ 19-9-2008 GS