HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30771 of 2011 Date: 02.12.2011 Between: M/s Monodone Aqua Farms Private Limited, Formerly known as Simhapuri Sea Foods Pvt Limited, Nellore, Reptd by its Managing Director-Sri Pulimi Ramesh Reddy ..... Petitioner AND: The District Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore District And another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation for Ac.38.28 cents of acquired land out of Ac.56.87 cents situated in Survey Nos.533 to 537 of Eepuru 1A Village, Muttukuru Mandal, Nellore District, in pursuance of Award No.1/2011-2012, dated 30.07.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents. The petitioner pleaded that it is the owner of Ac.56-87 cents of land situated in the above-mentioned survey numbers. Since there was a dispute relating to Ac.18-59 cents, the same was referred to the competent civil Court for adjudication under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The grievance of the petitioner is that even though award was passed in its favour for Ac.38-28 cents, the compensation was not paid. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents, on written instructions, submitted that though the petitioner is owner of the extent of Ac.38-28 cents of land, since it has not filed a declaration under Section 8 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (for short ‘the Land Reforms Act’), its case has been referred under Section 30 of the Act to the civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.15657 of 2011, wherein it is inter alia stated that as Isanaka Dayakar Reddy, S/o Ananda Mohan Reddy and Isanaka Ananda Mohan Reddy, S/o Venkateswara Reddy, respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the said Writ Petition, did not attend the award enquiry, the issue relating to payment of compensation for Ac.17-91 cents was referred to civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act; and that the petitioner herein has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.18-00 cents, Ac.18-00 cents, Ac.14-50 cents and Ac.6-37 cents in Sy.Nos.533 to 537 respectively. While the learned Assistant Government Pleader has not disputed the claim of the petitioner for receiving compensation in respect of Ac.38-28 cents, she has sought to justify the action of respondent No.2 in referring the issue to civil Court on the ground that the petitioner failed to file a declaration under the Land Reforms Act. In my opinion, even if the petitioner has not filed a declaration, that does not fall in any one of the contingencies mentioned under Section 31(2) of the Act. Unless there is a dispute relating to the petitioner’s entitlement to receive compensation, there is no warrant for respondent No.2 to refer the same to the civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act. If the petitioner has not complied with the statutory requirements for receiving compensation, at the most, respondent No.2 can withhold payment of compensation by keeping the same in Revenue deposit. Respondent No.2 should have called upon the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, in which case, the petitioner would have had an opportunity of putting forth its case before her. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, unless the land is determined as surplus under the Land Reforms Act and is vested in the Government, there is no need for the petitioner to file a declaration, and that, if the land was vested under the Land Reforms Act, the question of acquiring the same treating it as private property would not have arisen. As this aspects needs to be examined by respondent No.2, I refrain from expressing any opinion on this aspect. If respondent No.2 had any doubt on this aspect, she should have given a notice to the petitioner. In the premises as above, respondent No.2 is directed to file appropriate application before the civil Court for returning the reference and take back the deposit from the civil Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall be given a notice and after hearing the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall take a decision on payment of compensation to the petitioner. This entire process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.38165 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd December 2011 DR