IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28798 OF 2009 Between: Nune Yesobu S/o. Venkata Narasaiah and others ..... Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Palvancha Unit-II, Palvancha, Khammam District and others .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28798 OF 2009 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 – The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector, Indira Sagar Project, Palvancha Unit-II, Palvancha, Khammam District, in not referring the matter to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Executive Engineer, Polavaram, submitted requisition, dated 23-05-2008 to respondent No.1 for acquiring the entire land in Kondapalli Village of Kakkunuru Mandal in Khammam District, for the purpose of Indira Sagar Project. After receipt of the requisition, respondent No.1 got surveyed the entire land in Kondapalli Village and accordingly, departmental steps were taken for notifying the total land of an extent of Acs.641-41 guntas. 3. The claim of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of one Venkata Narasaiah, who was the original pattedar of land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas covered by Survey No.73/E and therefore, they are entitled to compensation, for which, they filed a claim petition before respondent No.1. The legal heirs of respondent No.3 are also claiming compensation in respect of the same land on the ground that respondent No.3 had purchased the said land from the original owner, Venkata Narasaiah. 4. Pursuant to receipt of notice from this Court, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that no award is passed, but a claim petition dated 10-12- 2009 is filed by the petitioners without any documentary evidence and there is also a claim by respondent No.3 along with documentary evidence in proof of her title in respect of the notified land in question. 5. The dispute with regard to entitlement of compensation is a matter to be decided by respondent No.1 – Land Acquisition Officer, while passing the award. Even before award is passed and rival claims are considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, based on the claim petition filed, the petitioners cannot seek any reference under Section 30 of the Act at this stage. 6. In view of the fact that award enquiry is still pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.1 – Land Acquisition Officer to complete the award enquiry and pass an appropriate award, having regard to the claims made by respondent No.3 and also the petitioners herein. If any adverse award is passed, it is open to the petitioners to proceed further in accordance with law. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 26, 2010. KTL