HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.4504 of 2006 Date : 29-6-2011 Between : Sharta Narsimlu s/o. Ramulu .. Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-the Special Deputy Collector (LAO) for Suddavagu and Mattavagu Project, Nirmal, Adilabad District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri S.Chandra Sekhar Counsel for respondent No.1 : G.P. for Land Acquisiton Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.3 : Ms.B.Sai Priya for Sri S.Surender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to refer the dispute raised in representation dated 25-1-2006 of the petitioner to the competent Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") for deciding the question as to the person who is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of Ac.2-29 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.54 of Ummadam village, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) and to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not referring the said dispute, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner averred that one Kandi Kista Reddy was the owner of the above mentioned land. The petitioner claims to be the son of the sister of the said Kista Reddy, that the said Kista Reddy died intestate on 13-3-2005 and his wife Gangamma predeceased him and that the said land was acquired by respondent No.1 for the purpose of Suddavagu and Mattadivagu projects. This Writ Petition was filed at a stage when award enquiry was pending, on the apprehension that the petitioner’s representation dated 25-1-2006 filed before respondent No.1 for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, is not likely to be considered and respondent No.1 may pass an award in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and pay compensation to them. True to the petitioner’s apprehension, respondent No.1 has passed an award ignoring the petitioner’s representation which fact is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector concerned with the land acquisition. It is clearly stated in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 that his predecessor in office passed the award on 29-12-2006 holding that three persons by names Ande Thirupathi s/o.Omanna, Elpedi Linganna s/o.Ramulu and Kanaparthi Pandarinath s/o.Ramulu were entitled to receive compensation, but the compensation amount was paid in favour of Kanaparthi Pandarinath, respondent No.2 and Elpedi Linganna s/o.Ramuolu. It is also candidly admitted in the counter-affidavit that the Special Deputy Collector did not consider the petitioner’s objection petition filed on 10-3-2006, passed the award and paid the compensation in favour of the above noted different set of persons. A Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Officer[1] dealt with a more or less similar situation. Their Lordships, after considering the scope of Sections 18, 30 and 31 of the Act held at para-13 as under : “As pointed out above, one of the contingencies referred to in Section 31(2) can be said to have occurred ‘if there be’ any dispute as to title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, such dispute arising in the course of the award inquiry itself. The words ‘there be any dispute’, in our view, do not mean that there must have arisen a fresh dispute after the passing of the award by the Collector. The contingency refers to the dispute which has already arisen in the award inquiry and in such a case, the Collector is statutorily ‘prevented’ from making any payment as per the award and he is bound to wait and see, till the expiry of the period of limitation under Section 18(2), whether any of the parties to the award is not satisfied with the title to the compensation or its apportionment as decided by him. If any such reference is sought for under Section 18 to the Civil Court, he is bound to deposit the compensation with the reference under Section 31(2). The idea is that the amount should be ‘ready’ for disposal as soon as the Civil Court, acting on the reference, decides the question of title and apportionment.” As the Land Acquisition Officer therein has not only passed the award ignoring the claim petitions but also paid compensation to the persons in whose favour the award was passed as in this case, this court, at paras 25 and 28, gave the directions as under : “We are also of the view, that the proper course is to direct not the party but the Collector, either as an interim measure or at the time of disposal of the reference by the Court, to deposit the disputed amount with the Civil Court leaving it to the Collector to take such steps as he may deem fit in order to secure the interests of the State. Firstly, the Collector who is the person at fault must bear the responsibility. He cannot, as pointed out by the Madras High Court in Deputy Collector, Cocanada Vs. Raja of Pittapur (AIR 1926 Madras 492(1), shift the risk or burden of recovering the disputed amount, to the reference Court or to those who succeed in the reference. Secondly, the legislative purpose of keeping the money for ready disposal by the Court is not likely to be achieved if the Court is to try to recover the amounts from the party. Thirdly, laying down such a principal is likely to result in more and more unauthorized and unwarranted disposals by the Collectors leading to uncertainty, prolonged litigation and lack of discipline. If the Collectors are made to deposit the monies in Court pending reference, the State will be in a position to keep track of such cases and if it thinks that the distribution of the monies was not for good reason but on account of any corrupt motives or misconduct, it could take action forthwith. Therefore we are of the view that the proper course would be for the Court to direct the Collector to deposit the monies into Court. … … For the reasons given above, we hold that this is a fit case not only to direct the 1st respondent to make the reference under Section 18 but also to direct him to deposit in Court the sum of Rs.1,74,756-94 in the Civil Court, along with the reference or, if the reference has already been made as directed by the learned single Judge, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. We accordingly so direct. After the amount is deposited, it shall be open to the Civil Court to invest the amount as per Section 32 of the Act. In case the claim of the appellant is negatived by the Civil Court it is needless to say that the Collector, L.A.O. is entitled to withdraw the amount from Court with interest accrued thereon. It shall also be open to the Collector to take appropriate steps against respondents 2 to 7 either to get back the disputed amount of Rs.1,74,756-94 from them or to ask them to furnish security. He can also apply to the reference Court for appropriate orders with regard to recovery of amount from respondents in case such need arises in the light of Civil Court’s judgment. The direction given by the learned single Judge to the 1st respondent to make a reference shall continue to remain in force. The writ appeal is allowed as stated above. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate’s fee Rs.250/-.” In my considered opinion, the Judgment of the Division Bench referred to above applies in all fours to the present case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to allow the Writ Petition in terms of the above Judgment with the direction to respondent No.1 to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner to the competent Civil Court. He shall also deposit the sum of Rs.2,88,750/- representing the compensation determined and paid to the above mentioned persons, in the Civil Court. On such reference being made, the competent Civil Court shall entertain the dispute and decide the same. The learned Government Pleader has fervently appealed to the court to saddle the liability on the incumbent holding the office of respondent No.1 and who was responsible for ignoring the claim petition filed by the petitioner, passed the award in favour of one set of persons and paid compensation to another set of persons. The righteous feelings of the learned Government Pleader are indeed appreciated. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, shall initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the officer concerned who is responsible for the flagrant violation of law and for the sheer indiscipline he has exhibited in discharging his duties apart from initiating steps for recovery of the amount of Rs.2,88,750/- from him, after following due legal process. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-6-2011 AM [1] 1991(1) ALT 176