IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 2718 of 2008 Between: Smt. Tatina Vijayabharathi, W/o. Kasi Visweswararao, R/o. Prakasaraopalem, Nallagerla (M), West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar Project, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Indira Sagar Project, Unit No. 2, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 Sri Vellanki Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o. late Gopalkrishna, Hindu, Male, R/o. Nallajerla (Mandal), West Godavari District. .....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 appropriate Writ or direction or order more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not consider the petitioner's representation dt. 24-1-2008 to refer to Civil Court under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India, violative of Natural Justice and also provisions of Land Acquisition Act and further direct the 1st Respondent to refer the Claim Pursuant to the notification dt. 5-11-2007 with regard to the properties situated in Nallajerla Village (M), Ananthapalli Sub Registrar, West Godavari District an extent of Ac. 2-05 cts. in R.S.No. 449/2, Ac. 0-57cts in R.S.No. 449/3, Ac. 4-74 cts in R.S.No. 451/3, Ac. 2-18 cts in R.S. 447/1, Ac. 2-65 cts in R.S.No. 247/2 and Ac. 0-99 cts in R.S.No. 451/2 for Civil Court under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MEHERCHAND NOORI 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 considering the petitioner’s representation dated 24.1.2008 to refer her claim to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity “the Act”), as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that the 4th respondent is her brother. The 1st respondent-Special Collector issued a Notification dated 5.11.2007 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire some landed properties belonging to the petitioner’s joint family along with other lands for the purpose of Indira Sagar Project, Polavaram. Later, the petitioner came to know the 4th respondent was making hectic efforts to withdraw the entire compensation for himself towards acquisition of their lands with an intention to deprive the petitioner of her part of compensation to which she is entitled, out of the joint family properties. In that context, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.1.2008 seeking to issue prohibitory order by way of injunction restraining the Land Acquisition Officer from paying the entire compensation to the 4th respondent. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that in spite of her representation, the 1st respondent has neither considered her representation nor referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the compensation. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent with regard to the apportionment of the compensation. When such a dispute is in existence, the matter shall have to be referred to the Civil Court with regard to the apportionment of the compensation as envisaged under Section 30 of the Act. However, before the matter is referred to the civil Court for adjudication, the Collector shall be satisfied that there is a genuine dispute between the parties. Hence, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent-Special Collector(Land Acquisition) is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24.1.2008 and decide as to whether there is a genuine dispute between the petitioner and her brother, the 4th respondent with regard to the apportionment of compensation, and if ultimately, the Collector is satisfied, he may refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of the compensation. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 10.03.2008 bcj