The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32612 of 2011 Date: 13-12-2011 Between: Kurumaddala Mohan Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur District and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Kurumaddala Mohan Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in seeking to disburse the compensation amount under award No.15 of 2010, dated 18-12-2010, with regard to property admeasuring 1519 square yards comprised in Door No.432/1B of Pedakakani Village and Mandal, Guntur District, in favour of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner suffered a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.21,000/- in OS.No.2097 of 1994 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, on 27- 11-1995. In execution of the said decree, the above- mentioned property was sold in Court auction to respondent No.3. The said property was later acquired for the purpose of widening of the existing National Highway and award No.15 of 2010, dated 18-12-2010, was passed in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner pleaded that, as the ex parte decree was obtained by the plaintiff in the suit without service of summons on him, he has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree with an application to condone the delay; that the application for condonation of delay was allowed and; that the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has been seeking to pay compensation to respondent No.3, for the property purchased in the Court auction, while his application for setting aside the ex parte decree is pending before the civil Court. In my opinion, the petitioner, having already approached the civil Court for setting aside the ex parte decree, is entitled to seek redressal of his grievance in the said case. As of now, respondent No.3 is the lawful owner of the property. Unless the ex parte decree is set aside, the suit is restored and the sale of property in favour of respondent No.3 is set aside, the petitioner will not have any legal right to claim compensation in respect of the property in question. At any rate, it is for the civil Court to consider the claim of the petitioner, in this regard, on the application, if any, filed by him. In this view of the matter, while declining to interfere with the dispute raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the petitioner is relegated to the civil Court, in which his application for setting aside the ex parte decree is pending, by moving appropriate application. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.No.40541 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 13th December, 2011 LUR