HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.30270 of 2010 Date : 29-11-2011 Between: S. Rama Moorthy Reddy and others .. Petitioners and The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor Revenue Division, Chittoor District .. Respondent Counsel for petitioners : Sri Koneti Raja Reddy for Sri B.D. Maheswara Reddy Counsel for respondent : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisiton The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay additional market value upto the date of passing of award i.e., 6-1-2010 without deducting the period during which the earlier Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.7753/2009, was pending. The property belonging to the petitioners admeasuring Ac.0-45 cents in Sy.No.64/1 and 64/2 of Kattamanchi, Chittoor town was acquired for the purpose of widening of Chittoor-Kurnool National Highway. An award was passed on 6-10-2010 whereby the petitioners inter alia were awarded 12% additional market value from the date of notification till the date of award. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold, namely, that the respondents have taken 15-8-2010 as the date of award instead of 6-10-2010 and that the additional market value was not calculated for the period from 25-4-2008 to 9-6-2010 (788 days), during which the above mentioned Writ Petition was pending. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on written instructions, stated that dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners have sought for reference of the dispute relating to fixation of compensation, to the Civil Court and that accordingly vide Roc.F/2799/2006, dated -3-2011, Roc.F/2799/2006, dated 21-3-2011 and Roc.F/2799/2006, dated 21-3-2011, the respondent has referred the disputes to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The learned Assistant Government Pleader accordingly submitted that in view of the reference of the disputes raised by the petitioners relating to fixation of compensation to the Civil Court, the petitioners are not entitled to avail a parallel remedy by way of this Writ Petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, I find force in the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Under Section 18 of the Act, if any person interested in the land has not accepted the award, he may seek reference of the dispute relating to measurement of land, amount of compensation, persons to whom it is payable or apportionment thereof, to the competent Civil Court. The expression ‘amount of compensation’ referred in the said provision comprehends the nature of dispute as raised in this Writ Petition relating to calculation of additional market value. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no justification for excluding the period during which the above mentioned Writ Petition was pending as there was no order of stay of the proceedings. This dispute can as well be raised by the petitioners to be decided by the C iv il Court on the interpretation of explanation to sub-section 1-A of Section 23 of the Act. In the premises as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioners to raise both the issues which are raised in the present Writ Petition before the reference Court. The reference Court shall, in such an event, decide the same on merits. The respondent is directed to take steps to ensure that the reference is registered by the Civil Court as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel, WPMP No.38551/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-11-2011 AM