THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3941 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a shop in premises bearing No.4-5-474, Badichowdy, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad. The building comprises of ground, first and second floors. It was originally owned by Smt.K.Narsamma. Respondent No.2 purchased the entire building from Narsamma. The petitioner states that respondent No.2 entered into an agreement of sale with him on 26.01.1994 for a consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- and a sum of Rs.41,000/- was paid as advance on the date of agreement. Further payment is said to have been made on 16.03.1994. The petitioner filed O.S.No.1033 of 1994 in the Court of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against respondent No.2 for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The suit was decreed and C.C.C.A.No.25 of 2002 filed by respondent No.2 against the decree is pending before this Court. Stay of all further proceedings was granted. Recently, a part of the property, admeasuring 16.75 square yards was acquired for the purpose of a Metro Rail Project. Respondent No.1 is the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 03.02.2001, to respondent No.1 with a request that the amount of compensation be not paid to respondent No.2. A further direction is sought to the effect that respondent No.1 be required to deposit the compensation to the credit of O.S.No.1033 of 1994. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The compensation for an item of immovable property acquired by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act can be paid only to the person who has title and subsisting interest in it. The petitioner no doubt had an agreement of sale in respect of the property referred to above and that the suit for specific performance was decreed. However, even before the decree was executed and the petitioner became the owner, part of the property was acquired by the Government. The petitioner could have claimed the compensation only after he became the owner. In view of the interim orders passed by this Court in C.C.C.A.No.25 of 2002, sale deed could not be executed in favour of the petitioner. Unless he becomes the absolute owner, neither he can claim compensation nor he can prevent respondent No.2 from receiving the compensation. In case the petitioner wanted to interdict that process, he ought to have filed a miscellaneous petition in C.C.C.A.No.25 of 2002. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.02.2011 kdl