*THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI +WRIT PETITION No.21472 of 2009 %Dated 01-10-2010 # Beeraboina Anjaneyulu ..... PETITIONER VERSUS $ The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District., and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.M.Sudheer Kumar ^Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition ^Counsel for Respondent No.2: None ^Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Mr. P.V.Ramana <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21472 of 2009 Dated: 01.10.2010 Between : Beeraboina Anjaneyulu …. Petitioner And The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District., and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21472 of 2009 ORDER: The land situated in Syi.Nos.15/1, 33/1, 51/2A, 55/2 and 57/6 admeasuring Ac.3.40 cents, Ac.15.80 cents, Ac.3.67 cents, Ac.2.48 cents and Ac.0.85 cents respectively of Mukunuru Village, Chintur Mandal, Khammam District was acquired for a public purpose vide Notification dated 24.3.2008 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). Pursuant thereto, award was passed on 29.11.2008 by the 1st respondent – Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) – determining compensation and a cheque dated 26.6.2009 was issued for a sum of Rs.11,01,440/- in the name of the 3rd respondent. At that stage, the petitioner made a representation dated 1.7.2009 before the 1st respondent requesting to stop payment to the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner’s father and the 3rd respondent were joint owners of the land in question. It was also stated that as the name of the 3rd respondent alone was shown in the revenue records, the 3rd respondent had initially agreed to pay half share of the compensation to the petitioner but after receiving the cheque, he refused to pay the half share to which the petitioner was legitimately entitled to. Basing on the said representation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 1.7.2009 directed the 2nd respondent Bank to stop payment of cheque dated 26.6.2009. However, by subsequent order dated 10.8.2009 the 1st respondent directed to release the amount covered by the said cheque. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in releasing the compensation to the 3rd respondent without referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court after depositing the entire compensation amount in the appropriate Civil Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that after receiving the representation of the petitioner dated 1.7.2009, though an enquiry was made into the petitioner’s claim, he failed to establish any sufficient cause to stop payment of compensation amount. Hence the 2nd respondent Bank was directed to release the amount by order dated 10.8.2009. It is further stated that except the representation dated 1.7.2009 the petitioner did not file any documentary evidence in support of his claim and failed to establish any just and sufficient cause to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The 3rd respondent in his counter-affidavit while claiming exclusive title and possession in respect of the land in question, further contended that once the award was passed, the question of referring the matter to the Civil Court does not arise; and having failed to participate in the award enquiry, it was not open to the petitioner to seek reference to the Civil Court by making a representation. It is also stated that O.S.No.23 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Special Assistant Agent (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam for injunction was dismissed as withdrawn. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly the 3rd respondent’s name alone is shown in the Section 4 (1) notification as owner of the land in question and the award dated 29.11.2008 was passed after notice to him. The petitioner himself states that his name was not shown in the revenue records and admittedly he did not participate in the award enquiry. However the petitioner claims a share in the compensation awarded claiming that the land in question originally belonged to the petitioner’s grandfather by name Beeraboina Seshaiah and that the petitioner’s father and the 3rd respondent herein had succeeded to the said property on the death of Beeraboina Seshaiah. It is further claimed that though the entire property continued under joint cultivation by the petitioner’s father and the 3rd respondent, the revenue authorities had wrongly entered the name of the 3rd respondent alone in the revenue records. It is also claimed that since the petitioner was a co-sharer, the 3rd respondent had agreed to pay half of the compensation that may be awarded by the 1st respondent. Soon after the award was made, the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by way of a representation made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for contends that having regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought to have referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further contended that the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to refer the matter to the Civil Court on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish any sufficient cause for reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is arbitrary and illegal. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as under: “S.30. Dispute as to apportionment:- When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.” On a plain reading of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is clear that a person who is not a party to the proceedings can ask for reference under Section 30 of the Act to decide the dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation or the dispute as to the person to whom the compensation is payable. It has been held by the Courts in a catena of decisions that under Section 30 of the Act, the Collector may himself enquire into the rights of the persons interested claiming compensation or he may refer the dispute to the decision of the Court. It has also been held that the Collector is not bound to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act when so applied for, but he has the jurisdiction to enquire into the respective claims, and determine the disputed claims and disputed questions of title as well. It is also open to him to refer the dispute to the Civil Court for decision if he is of the opinion that the dispute as to the title or apportionment involves complicated questions of fact or law and that it is desirable that the said question should be enquired into by the Civil Court. [ vide SHARDA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR (AIR 2003 SC 942) and GOVINDU VENKATA REDDY v. K. KRISHNA RAO AND ANOTHER (AIR 1982 ANDHRA PRADESH 86 (DB) ] In the instant case, the petitioner did not appear before the 1st respondent when the award was made. Subsequently when he raised a dispute and made a representation, the 1st respondent, having withheld the disbursement of the compensation to the 3rd respondent, made an enquiry into the claim made by the petitioner and having found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for half share in the compensation, thought it fit that it was not necessary to refer the matter for decision of the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The material available on record shows that the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent in declining to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act was on application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to institute a suit against the 3rd respondent so as to establish his right in respect of the land in question. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 01.10.2010 Note:- LR copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs