THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.23032 of 2002 Dated: 03.03.2010 Between: Thamballa Chandraiah (died) per L.Rs. and others. .. Petitioners. And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) S.R.B.C., Nandyal, Kurnool District, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: The case of the petitioners is that they are rendering their services as Archakas in Panikeswara Swamy temple. While so, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to acquire the land to an extent of Ac. 28.11 gts., including the land to an extent of Ac. 2.72 cents in Sy. No.255/2 pertaining to the said temple, in the village limits of Bhupanapadu village of Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, for the purpose of formation of minor canal on Block No.4 of Maddur Major of Srisailam Right Bank Canal, and possession was also taken on 01.03.1995 in advance. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published. Thereafter, an award vide Award No.63/98-99 has been passed on 29.03.1999 and compensation, in respect of the land belonging to the said temple, was paid in favour of the 2nd respondent, namely, Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool. The petitioners contend that since they were not put on notice before passing of the award, they submitted an application on 14.02.2001 to the first respondent, seeking reference of their case to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, and as no action was taken by the 1st respondent on their application, they filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7765 of 2001 before this Court, and the same was disposed of on 12.07.2002, with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioners, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent, by his order dated 12.09.2002, informed the petitioners that their request for reference of their case to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act does not arise, since the application was not received before passing of the award. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that the entries in the revenue records reflected the name of Panikeswara swamy, as pattadar and enjoyer of the lands under acquisition i.e., to an extent of Ac.2.72 cents in Sy.No.255/2. It is stated that after issuing statutory notices as required under law, particularly, the notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) and 10 of the Act, inviting claims and objections from all the interested persons in respect of the lands under acquisition, the award has been passed vide Award No. 63/98-99 dated 30.03.1999 and notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was also issued on the same day i.e., on 30.03.1999. However, the petitioners did not file any claim petition or raised any objection, within the stipulated time, but long after passing of the award and payment of compensation in favour of the 2nd respondent, they filed the application dated 14.02.2001, seeking reference of their case to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, the application of the petitioners, has been rejected by the impugned endorsement dated 12.09.1992. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Land Acquisition for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent No. 2. Though the petitioners claim to be Archakas in Panikeswara Swamy Temple, cultivating the temple land, and entitled to share in the compensation, the fact remains, as is evident from the counter of the respondents, the name of Panikeswara Swamy Temple is recorded as owner of the land in the revenue records. While acquiring the land of the temple, the due process of law was followed by the respondents. During the course of land acquisition proceedings, the respondents issued notices, inviting claims and objections from all interested persons, and though the petitioners claim to have interest in the lands, the fact remains, the petitioners did not respond to the notices and did not file objections within the time stipulated. However, considering the objections that were available before him, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, and as the name of the Temple was recorded as pattadar and enjoyer in the revenue records, the compensation was paid in favour of the 2nd respondent, namely the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool. As applications for referring the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act have to be made before passing of the award, and considering the fact that the petitioners filed the application seeking to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, after passing of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer refused to receive the same, and no exception can be taken thereto. Hence, the relief as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners as Archakas of the temple were in enjoyment of its land under acquisition, they may be permitted to approach the competent civil Court for recovery of compensation from the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, Kurnool, who was paid compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, in respect of the land acquired. If the law permits, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent civil Court, for recovery of compensation from the 2nd respondent, who was paid the compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, in respect of the acquired land. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 03.03.2010 V V/KSR