THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31471 of 2011, 11143 and 16482 of 2012 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner and his family members are the owners of premises bearing No.11-6-874, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. Recently, the respondents have constructed a second bridge across the Railway Line at Lakdikapul. That necessitated acquisition of fairly vast extent of properties. The one owned by the petitioner was also affected. The officials of respondent No.2 marked the premises of the petitioner, covering an extent of 1009.17 square yards. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 07.07.2011. The extent was mentioned only as 546.27 square yards. By issuing successive errata, the respondents increased that area to 806 square yards. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 15.07.2007 for that area. W.P.No.31471 of 2011 is filed to declare the action of the respondents in notifying only 806 square yards for acquisition and not considering the representation in this regard as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. No interim orders were passed in that writ petition. The Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to pass an award on 20.01.2012. W.P.No.11143 of 2012 is filed challenging the award stating that neither the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act nor the award enquiry were held. It is also pleaded that though there was the claim of the petitioner alone, the Land Acquisition Officer has chosen to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. W.P.No.16482 of 2012 is filed alleging that though the extent acquired from the petitioner is 806 square yards, the respondents are proposing to demolish the building over an additional area of 203 square yards. Counter-affidavits are filed in W.P.Nos.31471 of 2011 and 11143 of 2012. It is stated that an extent of 132 square meters of land was acquired from the premises during the life time of the father of the petitioner, and an award was passed on 28.03.1985. According to the respondents, the prescribed procedure was followed throughout, and the matter was referred to civil Court, because the petitioner was not able to satisfy the Land Acquisition Officer about his absolute right over the property. It is also pleaded that in case the petitioner has any grievance vis-à-vis the award, he has to work out his remedies under Section 18 or other provisions of the Act. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri R.Radhakrishna Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, no doubt, has challenged the proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquisition of part of his property. However, the purpose is such that there is no other alternative for the respondents except to acquire the said property. The question for verification would be as to whether the prescribed procedure was followed and whether any area which was not the subject matter of acquisition, has been taken from the petitioner. The area that was marked on the premises for widening of the road is said to be 1009.17 square yards. The respondents do not dispute that the acquisition proceedings are confined to 806 square yards. The plea of the respondents is that an extent of 132 square meters was acquired during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner, so much so, that an award was also passed. According to them, the sub-division for the premises was affected in the town survey records. In this background, it is not at all possible for this Court to record any finding as to whether the land, which is now taken over from the petitioner is over and above what is notified, or whether the strip of land that was acquired in the year 1985 is independent of what is existing now. It is not as if the petitioner is without any remedy. Section 18 of the Act provides a comprehensive remedy in this regard. Not only the plea as to the adequacy of the compensation, but also the one as to measurements or the extent of land that was the subject matter of acquisition, can also be examined in detail on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence which the parties may adduce. Though the respondents are entitled to take possession of the property, the evidence in this regard needs to be preserved to enable the petitioner to work out his remedies. For this purpose, the existing road margin on the one hand and the area up to which the acquisition takes place on the other must be measured independent, of the pleas raised by the respective parties. The respondents shall prepare a separate sketch in this regard and handover a certified copy thereof, to the petitioner. He shall be entitled to utilise in the proceedings before the civil Court. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 20.01.2012. A perusal of the same discloses that after determining the market value, she has referred the matter to the civil Court only on the ground that the documents presented by the petitioner are not satisfactory. The approach is totally erroneous. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the only person who made claim over the land and that it is he, who has been pursuing the proceedings all through. When there were no other rival claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have paid the compensation to the petitioner. If any third parties have claim vis-à-vis the land, they have to work out their remedies separately, in accordance with law. The amount of compensation has since been deposited into the Court. For all practical purposes, the reference under Section 30 becomes redundant. It needs to be withdrawn. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of, directing that: (a) The notifications issued under Section 4 (1) and 6 of the Act are upheld; (b) The award, in so far as it has referred the matter to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act is set aside and the consequential O.P.No.659 of 2012 pending in the Court of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is declared as redundant. The Land Acquisition Officer shall withdraw the compensation from that Court and pay the same to the petitioner; (c) It shall be open to the petitioner to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act for the enhancement of compensation and as regards the area that is covered by the present acquisition proceedings; and (d) In case the petitioner seeks reference under Section 18 of the Act and raises the plea in this regard, the Court concerned shall frame an issue as to whether the area covered by award, dated 28.03.1985, remained with the petitioner or it was taken over by the Municipal Corporation. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions also stand disposed of. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 21.06.2012. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl