IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7868 of 2011 Between: Ramadugu Seethamma & others. … Petitioners And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B. Avani Reddy for Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri K. Vasanth Rao for Sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7868 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not conducting enquiry on the objections/claims made by the petitioners on 03.01.2011 in respect of Ac.6.11 guntas in Sy.Nos.711/2 and 713/2 of Ramanagaram Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District in pursuance of notification, dated 09.12.2010, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary. This Writ Petition is filed on the apprehension that without considering the petitioners’ objections relating to compensation in respect of the abovementioned properties, respondent No.3 is likely to pass an award and pay the amounts to respondent Nos.5 to 7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that he has examined the objections filed by the petitioners and drawn the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for payment of compensation and award was accordingly passed on 06.04.2011 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7. It is further stated that compensation amount has not been paid to respondent Nos.5 to 7, as the requisition department has not deposited the required funds so far. Under Section 30 of the Act, when there is a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation, respondent No.3 is vested with the discretion to refer such dispute to the competent civil Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Rao rep., by his GPA Holder Siddiram vs. Land Acquisition Officer (Spl)-cum-Dy. Collector, Singoor Project of Sangareddy, Medak District and others[1] while interpreting Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, held that the Collector has discretion either to decide the title himself or refer the dispute to the decision of the civil Court and that in either event he shall deposit the compensation amount in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. After such deposit the Collector has to make a reference under Section 18 as to the persons to whom compensation is payable. In view of this undisputed legal position and in the light of the fact that respondent No.3 has already passed an award and payment has not been made so far, he is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the competent civil Court under Section 30 and make a reference of the dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.9786 of 2011 and WVMP.No.3811 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.11.2011 ES [1] 1991 (1) ALT 176