HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.32733 of 2010 Date : 31-12-2010 Between : M.Gopal Reddy and Others .. Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others .. Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the Award passed by the 3rd Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), Unit-1, Outer Ring Road Project, Hyderabad under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in File No.LA/Unit-I/152-1/2006, dated 17-03-2009, referring the award to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, as illegal. 2. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners and possessors of Ac.3.05 guntas of land situate in Sy.No.36 of Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said land along with other lands, was acquired for formation of Outer Ring Road, Phase-II in Maheswaram Mandal in pursuance of a Draft Notification, dated 25-03-2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. After conducting enquiry under Section 5-A and Publication of Declaration under Section 6, the 3rd Respondent conducted award proceedings after issuing notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. In response to the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the respondents 6 to 16 filed a petition on 21-07-2007 stating that they are the protected tenants of the land situate in Sy.No.36. In support of their claim, they filed a true copy of the P.T. Register for the year 1950 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheswaram. In view of the disputed claims between the petitioners and Respondents 6 to 16, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to Civil Court for adjudication under Section 30 and to deposit the amount of compensation in Civil Court under Section 31 of the Act. Challenging the Reference so made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for Respondents 1 to 5. 4. Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating that the petitioners are the absolute owners being the purchasers, would contend that since the land was an inam land, Occupancy Certificate was granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District vide Proceedings No.J/2737/1990, dated 04-01-1992 in favour of their vendors viz., Mahmooda Begum and Ameena Begum under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana) Area Abolition of Inam Act, 1955. The land being an inam land, the claim of the Respondents 6 to 16 as protected tenants is not tenable. He would also contend that the copy of the P.T. Register submitted by Respondents 6 to 16 is not genuine, therefore the Land Acquisition Officer ought not to have relied upon the said document for ordering reference to the Civil Court. He would further contend that the Respondents are not entitled for compensation and they objected the rights of the petitioners with mala fide intention. The counsel would therefore contend that the reference is not sustainable. 5. Under Section 30 of the Act when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the authority may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 6. In the instant case, as noticed above, the respondents 6 to 16 have raised a dispute that they are the protected tenants and that they are entitled for a share. The Land Acquisition Officer having considered the same thought it fit that the said dispute is liable to be referred to the Civil Court. Whether the claim of the Respondents 6 to 16 as protected tenants is genuine or not with reference to the P.T. Register could not have been undertaken by the Land Acquisition Officer in view of the summary nature of enquiry under Section 30 of the Act. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference of award for adjudication under Section 30 ordered by the 3rd Respondent cannot said to be illegal. There are no merits in the Writ Petition. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31-12-2010. skmr Note : Issue C.C. in one week. B/O skmr