IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Dt.12th October, 2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13999 of 2010 Between: Smt. Anantha Surekha … Petitioner And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its District Collector (LA), Mahaboobnagar District And two others … Respondents HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.No.13999 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner herein claims to have purchased Ac.6.00 cents of agricultural land situated in S.No.505 of Gopanpalli village, Devarkadhra Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District from one S.Ram Chander Rao under a registered sale deed executed in the year 2005. Out of the said land, an extent of Ac.2.70 cents was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a public purpose ie. Koilsagar Left Irrigation Scheme-III. Alleging that the respondents failed to pay compensation inspite of the sanction accorded by the respondent No.2 by order dated 30.01.2009 for payment of 80% compensation, the writ petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.8513 of 2010. Thereafter the respondent No.2 passed the award dated 27.03.2010 referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that a civil dispute about the ownership and title is pending in between the petitioner and the respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the said award, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, including the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector as well as the respondent No.3. In the light of the material available on record it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to the title in respect of the acquired land to an extent of Ac.2.70 cents. Civil Court alone is competent to adjudicate such a dispute as provided under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, the respondent No.2 was justified in referring the matter to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order which does not suffer from any error of fact or law warrants no interference by this Court. However having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, there shall be a direction to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal to dispose of the O.P. registered pursuant to the reference made by the respondent No.2 following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI Dt.12th October, 2011 PNV