THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3208 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2008 passed in I.A.No. 114 of 2008 in LAOP No. 1759 of 1999 on the file of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. I.A. No. 114 of 2008 was filed by the claimant in the LAOP No. 1759 of 1999. A reference was made by the Special Deputy Collector (LA) NTPC, Visakhapatnam under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act for apportionment of the compensation between the rival claimants, under Order XX read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for answering the said reference. As seen from the record, the claimant No. 1 is the party before the Civil appeal No. 2177 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following order in Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 2007: “the status quo obtaining between the parties in the appeal as on 13.4.2007 with regard to the subject matter, which was in dispute before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Judicature, in Appeal No. 328 of 1980 shall be maintained. Order shall be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.” In view of the above order passed by the supreme Court , the appellant Court dismissed the I.A observing as under: “ If this Court passes an order answering the reference in the LAOP 1759 of 1999 despite the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 2007 directing to maintain status-quo, it would amount to contempt of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the petitioner is a party before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 2177 of 2007, the petitioner can get clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme court as to whether the said order pertains to the subject matter in the LAOP before this Court or not.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the award was passed on 31.5.1999 under Award No. 2/99 in respect of an extent of Ac. 111.16 cts covered by S.Nos. 461/2B and 461/2C of Cheepurupalli Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. He also submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the rightful ownership and only an application filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is pending for determination of the compensation, but the learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that there is stay by the Supreme Court in similar cases. He further submits that the land in question is a patta land of the rival claimants and the same was acquired long back. He further submits that A.S.No. 328 of 1980 was filed by the petitioner herein against the judgment dated 6.2.1980 passed in O.S.No. 8 of 1999 and for that reason the Supreme Court sent a copy of its stay order to the trial court, wherein O.P.No. 1959 of 1999 is pending and the appellate Court erred in rejecting the IA. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the land in question is a patta land of the rival claimants and the award was passed as long back as on 31.5.1999. Application filed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, is only pending for determination of the compensation and there is no dispute with regard to the rightful owner ship. This Court clarified that the land covered under Exs. A-99, A-13 and A- 104 respectively to an extent of Ac. 436 is not covered by Appeal No. 328 of 1980 on the file of this Court. Out of Ac. 436 of land, an extent of Ac. 111.16 is covered by OP No. 1759 of 1999 on the file of the District Court. The appellate Court ought to have appreciated the facts that the land to an extent of Ac. 111.16 was acquired in the year 1999 by the Land Acquisition Officer, who made a reference under Sections 39 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and an enquiry also conducted in OP No1959 of 1999 in the year 1999 itself. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Court for early disposal of I.A. The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the I.A, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 18.06.2010 KA