*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + WRIT PETITION No.21781 of 2011 % Dated: 19-12-2011 # Mrs. Meena Parikh & another. … Petitioner VERSUS $ The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P. Sridhar Reddy ^ Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21781 of 2011 Between: Mrs. Meena Parikh & another. … Petitioners And The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21781 of 2011 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners claim to be the owners of premises bearing Door Nos. 5-1-459/3, 3A and 4 of Jambagh, Hyderabad. Notification, dated 23.10.2008, was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) by respondent No.1 proposing to acquire the said property. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 08.07.2009. Writ Petition No.16108 of 2009 was filed questioning the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners obtained limited stay and obviously after expiry of the interim order, award was passed in respect of which a notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 16.04.2011. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that even though they have appeared before respondent No.2 with documents of title, they were informed that since no one claimed title, the issue was referred to civil Court under Section 30 of the Act and compensation was deposited under Section 31(2) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by this action of respondent No.2, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that as they had no notice of award enquiry, the petitioners could not make their claim before respondent No.2 before the award was made and that after receiving the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, they have appeared before respondent No.2 and made a claim by filing their documents of title and that in spite of the same, respondent No.2 has not paid compensation and instead he informed the petitioners that he has already referred the dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that as no one made a claim before respondent No.2, he has referred the dispute to the civil Court. Under Section 30 of the Act, 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. Under Section 31 of the Act, 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 Section 31(2). Thus, according to the scheme underlying Sections 30 and 31, the Collector is empowered to determine the compensation and also at his discretion decide as to the person to whom the compensation is payable and also the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof to be made. If the Collector does not choose to decide such disputes, he shall refer the same to the civil Court. Under Section 31(2), if the parties do not consent to receive compensation amount or if there is no person competent to alienate the land or if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment thereof, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would lie. In the instant case, from the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it appears that there is no dispute as to the person, who is entitled to receive compensation or apportionment thereof. It appears, it is also not a case where the land acquisition officer found that there is no person competent to alienate the land. In the absence of disputes on these aspects, it is not permissible for the land acquisition officer to make a reference to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act by depositing the compensation under Section 31(2) of the Act. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they could not participate in the award enquiry due to lack of notice and that their claim made subsequent to passing of the award in response to the notice received by them under Section 12(2) was not considered because respondent No.2 has already decided to refer the non- existent dispute to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. In my opinion, respondent No.2 ought not to have referred the issue to the civil Court merely because no one came forward to receive the compensation. In such an event, the only option available to respondent No.2 is to keep the compensation in revenue deposit till such time as any person interested makes a claim before him with documentary proof of title. Respondent No.2 has therefore not followed the proper and correct procedure. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to file appropriate application before the civil Court to which the issue was referred for taking return of the amount already deposited with a request to close the reference, if the same has already been registered. The petitioners are permitted to make a claim before respondent No.2, within a period of one month from today along with documentary proof of their title. Respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take a decision as to payment of compensation to the petitioners. He shall communicate his decision to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. The petitioners can avail further remedies, if they feel aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by respondent No.2. As a sequel, WPMP.No.26528 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.12.2011 ES LR copies to be marked. Note:- Furnish CC in a week. (B/o.) ES