THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9191 and 12108 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are ﬁled assailing Award Nos.13 and 14 of 2008, passed on 25.03.2008 and 19.03.2008 respectively, by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, Indira Sagar Project, Right Main Canal, Unit-II, Eluru, West Godavari District, the ﬁrst respondent in both the writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P.No.9191 of 2008 is said to be the owner of an extent of Ac.1.50 cents of land in Survey No.169/2A of Polasanipalli Village, Bhimadole Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioners in W.P.No.12108 of 2008 are the owners of Acs.11.23 cents of land in Survey No.198/2 of Pangidigudem Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District. The said lands were acquired, vide notiﬁcations, dated 03.11.2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and declarations under Section 6 of the Act, dated 24.02.2008 and 12.03.2008. After conducting enquiry, the ﬁrst respondent passed the Awards, referred to above. He determined the compensation payable under Award Nos.13 and 14 of 2008 at Rs.17,03,889/- and Rs.48,87,515/- respectively. He directed that the amounts be deposited in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Eluru, under Section 31(2) of the Act. The basis for this direction was that the second respondent held an agreement of sale, dated 08.05.2004, in respect of the acquired lands, and he ﬁled O.S.No.39 of 2006 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Eluru, for the relief of specific performance. The petitioners contend that the course of action adopted by the ﬁrst respondent is totally impermissible in law. According to them, reference, if at all, was to have been under Section 30 of the Act, in the event of there being any rival claim, and there was no basis for the ﬁrst respondent in directing deposit of the amount in a different Court. The second respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, opposing the claims in the writ petitions. He states that the actual claim for the compensation was made by him alone, before the ﬁrst respondent and that the petitioners did not dispute the agreement of sale. He contends that in addition to issuing a direction in the Awards, the ﬁrst respondent addressed a letter, dated 30.05.2008, to the learned Additional District Judge, Eluru, mentioning the context in which the deposit is being made. The circumstances under which O.S.No.39 of 2006 was filed, are also stated. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, and Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the Act is a self-contained code and the circumstances under which, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, can make reference to civil Court, are provided for under Sections 18 or 30 of the Act, and that the steps taken by the ﬁrst respondent are contrary to the same. They contend that the necessity to deposit the compensation would have arisen, if only a reference was made under Sections 18 or 30 of the Act and there was no basis for the ﬁrst respondent in directing deposit of the amounts, covered by the Awards in question. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, and Sri M.P.Chandra Mouli, the learned counsel for the second respondent, submit that the claim of the second respondent was taken into account by the ﬁrst respondent and with a view to leave the parties to seek adjudication of their respective rights, the amount was sent to the Court where the suit was ﬁled. They contend that no illegality can be said to have been crept into the Awards. The publication of notiﬁcations under Section 4(1), declarations under Section 6 of the Act and passing of Awards in respect of the lands of the petitioners, took place in very quick succession. On his part, the ﬁrst respondent proceeded with the award enquiry and arrived at a conclusion as to the market value of the lands and other beneﬁts. To that extent, the petitioners do not ﬁnd fault with the exercise undertaken by the first respondent. In fact, if they are not satisﬁed with the Awards, they have to work out their remedies under the relevant provisions of law. After determining the amount of compensation payable to the owners of the land, the ﬁrst respondent made the following observation: “the amount has to be remitted in the Court in favour of Additional District Judge, Eluru under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.” The basis for such a direction was not at all mentioned. In case the owner of the land is not satisﬁed with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, he can seek reference to a civil Court and such a reference is to be made under Section 18 of the Act. The other method of reference is the one under Section 30 of the Act. Reference under this provision is to be made, in the event of the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer noticing any dispute as to the entitlement or apportionment of the compensation. Section 31 of the Act deals with the payment or deposit of compensation. It reads as under: “Payment of Compensation or deposit of same in Court:- (1) On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub- section. (A.P. State amendment is omitted since it is not relevant for the purpose of this case). (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted.” A perusal of this provision discloses that the necessity for making the deposit of the compensation in a Court would arise, if only, the persons interested as mentioned in the award do not agree to receive it, when tendered. The section is very clear to the eﬀect that the deposit, if at all, is to be in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 of the Act would be made. It is not in dispute that in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Courts to which reference can be made under Sections 18 or 30, are the Courts of Senior Civil Judge. It is rather curious, if not strange, that the ﬁrst respondent has evolved a procedure of his own and directed deposit in clear contravention of the speciﬁc provisions of the Act. The cryptic direction contained in the Awards could have been ignored, by giving beneﬁt of lack of clear understanding of the provisions, to the ﬁrst respondent. However, he has denied to himself that beneﬁt, by addressing letter, dated 30.05.2008. He had mentioned several facts, which do not fall within the scope of the provisions of the Act and had chosen to advance the claims of the second respondent. The letter, dated 30.05.2008, can not at all, be traced to any provisions of the Act. The ﬁrst respondent appears to have deliberately chosen to deviate from the prescribed procedure, sacriﬁcing the interests of the petitioners. Making of even, a reference under Section 30 of the Act is not a matter of course. Before making such a reference, the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer is supposed to take into account, the rival claims and only thereafter, make a reference to the Court, duly indicating the nature of claims. Unless necessary factual basis is indicated, the very reference becomes untenable, apart from making it impossible for the Court to answer it. No such basis was indicated in the Awards under question. When it was not even pointed out that there is any title dispute, the question of making deposit of the amount in a Court, that too, not the one to which, reference can be made, is totally illegal. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned Awards are set aside to the extent they directed remission of the amount in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Eluru. The Land Acquisition Oﬃcer is directed to issue revised Awards in accordance with law, without touching the quantum of compensation. It is observed that recurrence of any such instances in the hands of the ﬁrst respondent would be taken, serious note of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.09.2008. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl