The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31289 of 2011 Date: 09-12-2011 Between: Deepak Patel and another ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.V.M.M.Chary Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Dr.Y.Padmavathi, SC for GHMC The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not rectifying the mistakes in award No.AA/1154/2007, dated 30-10-2010, under Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and in not releasing the compensation in favour of the petitioners in respect of property bearing House Nos.1-7- 150, 150/1 and 2, situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. The abovementioned property, in respect of which the petitioners claim to be the owners, was notified for acquisition for metro rail project. The petitioners pleaded that their names were not mentioned in the acquisition proceedings, as a result of which they could not participate in the award enquiry, and that, on 08-03-2011, a notice was issued by respondent No.3 wherein it was informed that the award enquiry was held on 25-11-2008 and that in connection with the award passed, the interested persons were requested to appear on 14-03-2011 for putting forth their claim over the acquired property. Even though the said notice was not served on the petitioners, on coming to know about the said notice through the neighbouring owners, the petitioners have visited the office of respondent No.3 and filed a statement of claim along with ownership documents on 27-12-2010. The grievance of the petitioners is that the award was passed in the name of one person viz. Mangal Lal Patel, who has nothing to do with the ownership of the property in question and that, in spite of their claim petition, respondent No.3 has not rectified the said mistake and paid compensation to them and that, instead, he has stated in the award that the matter is referred to civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, stated that, since no claims were received in respect of the above-mentioned property, respondent No.3 has decided to refer the dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, but the compensation has not been deposited in the civil Court so far. The need for reference of a dispute arises only when any of the contingencies mentioned in Section 30 of the Act arise. In the instant case, no one appeared to have made any claim with respect to the abovementioned property. Therefore, there was no need for respondent No.3 to make reference under Section 30 of the Act. Obviously, in realization of the same, respondent No.3 has issued a notice, terming the same as final notice, on 08-03-2011 to all those persons, who are interested in the property sought to be acquired, to appear before him on 14-03-2011 at 11.30 a.m., and put forth their claim or interest. As noted above, the petitioners averred that, on 27-12-2010, they have filed their ownership documents and made a claim, but respondent No.3 has not paid compensation to them. Inasmuch as the petitioners are making a claim for compensation, it is appropriate that respondent No.3 considers their claim as proposed by him through notice, dated 08-03-2011. If respondent No.3 is satisfied that the petitioners are the owners of the property in question, he shall pay compensation to them as fixed by him under the award. Conversely, if respondent No.3 does not accept the ownership of the petitioners, he shall communicate his decision to the petitioners, and in such an event, the petitioners shall be free to seek reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners shall make their claim afresh before respondent No.3 within a period of one month from today. Within one month thereafter, respondent No.3 shall take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.38823 of 2011, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 9th December, 2011 LUR