IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18076 of 2004 Between: 1 Maddala Suryanarayana Murthy, S/o.Visweswara Rao, R/o.NAD Kotha Road, Dr.No.58-15-129, Santhinagar, Visakhapatnam-9. 2 Maddala Seetaramaiah, S/o.Visweswara Rao, R/o.NAD Kotha Road, Dr.No.58-15-129, Santhinagar, Visakhapatnam-9. 3 Maddala Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o.Visweswara Rao, R/o.NAD Kotha Road, Dr.No.58-15-129, Santhinagar, Visakhapatnam-9. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, SEZ Unit - II, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Special Grade Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, SEZ-II, APIIC, Visakhapatnam. 3 Pudi China Satyanam, S/o.P.Venkateswamy, R/o.Chinapudi, Kollivanipalem (P), Yelamanchili Taluq, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. 4 Eka Apparao, S/o.Late Eda Tataiah, R/o.Doraipalem, Gurajapalem (P), Yelamanchili Taluq, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. 5 Eka Chinnodu, S/o. Late Eka Tataiah, R/o.Doraipalem, Gurajapalem (P), Yelamanchili Taluq, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. 6 Eka Demudu, S/o.Late Eda Tataiah, R/o.Doraipalem, Gurajapalem (P), Yelamanchili Taluq, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. 7 Sanyasi Rao, S/o.Reddynaidu, R/o.Gurajapalem (P), Yelamanchili Taluq, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.T.NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for respondents 3 to 7: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to refer the dispute as to the entitlement of the petitioners to receive compensation in respect of Acs.16.00 cents of land comprised in Survey No.1/3B/5 of Gurajapalem Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District to the competent Civil Court as contemplated under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners also sought for a declaration that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in seeking to disburse the compensation amount to respondents 3 to 7 as illegal and unconstitutional. The averments contained in the aﬃdavit and counter- aﬃdavit disclose that there is a dispute regarding right to receive compensation in respect of the above mentioned land between the petitioners on the one side and respondents 3 to 7 on the other. The petitioners issued legal notice dated 06- 02-2004 to respondent No.1 claiming compensation under the proposed award. In reply to the same, respondent No.1 informed the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not represented to him at an earlier point of time and the petitioners’ claims will be examined during the course of award enquiry. The petitioners later on ﬁled the present writ petition with the plea that respondent No.1 appeared to have issued proceedings directing payment of compensation to respondents 3 to 7. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, it is, inter alia, stated that at the time of award enquiry, Special Surveyor was entrusted with the work of veriﬁcation of enjoyment of property and requisition on ground; that boundaries of the land noted in the document produced by the petitioners have not tallied with Survey No.1/3B/5; that the said survey number admeasuring Acs.17.49 cents was found to be actually in possession and enjoyment of Sri Raja Satyanarayana and his family and that therefore, compensation has been paid to the actual owners of the land in pursuance of the award passed on 15-09-2004 under Section 11(2) of the Act. Under Section 30 of the Act, when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11 of the Act, 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. Under Section 18 of the Act, any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. For making such an application, limitation is prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 18. An analysis of the above two provisions makes it clear that while provisions of Section 30 of the Act confer discretion on the Collector to refer the dispute, under Section 18 of the Act, any person interested who has not accepted the award is entitled to seek reference as a matter of right, provided he makes such a request within the period of limitation prescribed therein. In the instant case, a perusal of the counter-aﬃdavit shows that after considering the respective claims of the parties and on the basis of the survey report, respondent No.1 was satisﬁed that respondents 3 to 7 are entitled to receive compensation being the true owners. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the said award, it should have been open to them to invoke the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. If such a remedy is not availed by the petitioners, it is also open to them to ﬁle a civil suit for declaration of their right to receive compensation. As award was passed and compensation was already paid on the basis of the satisfaction of respondent No.1, I am not inclined to direct respondent No.1 to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act, at this stage. The petitioners are left free to avail either of the two remedies referred to supra. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th August, 2008 vrn