IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 3584 of 2009 BETWEEN: Namburu Venkata Narapa Reddy S/o.Chinna Sesha Reddy R/o.Musunur (Village), Kavali (Mandal), Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, at Nellore A.P. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali (M), Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, AP. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in rejecting the application of the petitioner U/s. 18(1) of the L.A. Act in Award No.5/2008-2009 vide endorsement dated 20.8.2008 in RC.No.K/374 of 2008 as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to entertain the application of the petitioner dated 30.7.2008 U/s. 18(1) of the L.A. Act in Award No.5/2008-2009 and refer the same to the competent Civil Court and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in rejecting application of the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) in Award No.5/2008- 2009 vide endorsement dated 20.08.2008 in RC.No.K/374 of 2008 as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction; consequently to direct the respondents to consider application of the petitioner dated 30.07.2008 filed under Section 18(1) Act and refer the matter to the competent civil Court. 2. It appears that the lands of the petitioner were acquired by invoking the provisions of the Act and an award was passed in Award No.5/2008-2009. However, when the petitioner made a representation protesting the quantum of compensation paid to him and sought for referring the matter to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, the same was rejected by endorsement dated 20.08.2008. The reason furnished in the said impugned order is that since the matter has already been referred under Section 30 of the Act for decision of the civil Court, the petition filed under Section 18 of the Act is rejected. This approach made by the second respondent is not proper. 3. The reference under Section 30 of the Act is in view of the dispute between the claimants; whereas Section 18 reference is to be made in view of the fact that the claimants are not satisfied by the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, there is no bar for referring the matter to the competent civil Court both under Section 30 as well as under Section 18 of the Act for determining the compensation and also as to the title between the claimants. 4 Under those circumstances, the impugned endorsement dated 20.08.2008 is set aside. The Land Acquisition Officer – second respondent herein is directed to refer the matter, insofar as it relates to the petitioner in Award No.5/2008-2009 by considering the application dated 30.07.2008, to the competent civil Court. If the second respondent requires any copy of the application dated 30.07.2008 the same may be requisitioned from the petitioner for taking further action. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU, J February 25, 2009 DSK