IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26936 of 2008 Between: 1 Loka Ram Reddy @ Soma Ram Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, R/o. Pochera Village, Adilabad District & Mandal. 2 Loka Laxmi Reddy @ Soma Laxma Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, R/o. Pochera Village, Adilabad District & Mandal. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Union of India, Rep by its Revenue Divisional Officer and Competent Authority, National Highway Authority, Adilabad. 2 Smt. Nalimala Padmala Bai, w/o. Potha Lingu, R/o. Pochera Village, Mandal and District Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by call for the records relating to and connected with proceedings No. B/291/2006, dated 10- 10-2008 and declare the same as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and direct the 1st respondent to pay the entire compensation to the petitioner on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may please to decide in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M.V.KINI&CO. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare proceedings No.B/291/06, dated 10.10.2008, passed by the first respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to pay compensation along with interest to the petitioners. It appears that the land of the petitioners was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India by invoking the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). According to the petitioners they alone are entitled to the compensation to be paid under the Act and the second respondent has no right what so ever for claiming the compensation. In spite of that the compensation is sought to be paid to the second respondent. Hence, the matter was referred to the Civil Court for adjudication under Section 3H(4) of the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that in view of the disputes between the parties, the compensation awarded by the competent authority cum Revenue Divisional Officer had already been deposited by the respondents and the matter has to be decided by the civil Court. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent stated that since there is a dispute, the matter was referred to the competent civil court for adjudication as to the title and entitlement of the petitioner and respondent No.2 to receive the compensation. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in this writ petition for adjudication as of today. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the civil court to which the matter has been referred under Section 3-H(4) of the Act and work out their remedies. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 03.03.2009 va