IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.6147 of 2011 Between: Smt. Sirangari Bhagyamma. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., reptd., by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Mahadev. Counsel for the respondents: Sri Ravindra Yanamandra for R.2. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy for R.3 to R.8. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to pay compensation in respect of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.2, 3/A, 532, 533, 538, 539, 540, 541, 546, 547, 554/A, 557/A and 562, admeasuring Ac.17.01 guntas, situated in Uppal Bhagath village within the limits of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation or allot land in lieu of compensation only to respondent Nos.3 to 8 without considering the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner, who claims to be the daughter of late Sri Yadi Reddy, pleaded that being one of the coparceners of the family, she is entitled to get equal share along with other members of the family after the death of her father as per the amendment Act of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and that she is entitled to 1/7th share over the lands, which are notified for acquisition for the purpose of “Moosi River Conservation and River Front Development”. The petitioner further pleaded that she has filed O.S.No.485 of 2010 before the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and separate possession of her 1/7th share over the acquired lands; and that the same is pending. The petitioner is stated to have made her representation in the award enquiry before respondent No.2. Her apprehension is that, without considering her claim, respondent No.2 is likely to pay compensation either in cash or by way of allotment of developed land in lieu of payment compensation in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8. Sri A.Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ravindra Yanamandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2; and Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8 advanced their submissions. At the hearing, it has come out that the award enquiry is still pending before respondent No.2 and that so far he has not taken any decision. Under the Scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), if any dispute as to title or the persons who are entitled to receive compensation is raised before the Collector, he can either decide the dispute himself or refer the same to the competent Civil Court for adjudication. In case he decides to decide the dispute, he shall pass an award and wait till expiry of statutory period to enable the aggrieved party to seek reference under Section 18(2) of the Act. In case he refers the dispute under Section 30 of the Act, he shall deposit the compensation amount in Civil Court. (See: the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Officer – 1991(1) ALT 176). As the award enquiry is stated to be pending before respondent No.2, he is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner issued through legal notice, dated 8-2-2011, if the same is received by him, and take a decision in terms of the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.7659 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17-11-2011 MNR