IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5494 of 2005 Between: A.Krishnaveni W/o. Satyanarayana, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Eluru, W.G.District. 2 Land Acquisition Officer, Yerrakalava Project, West Godavari District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, T Narasapuram(M), West Godavari District 4 G.Savithri, W/o. Satyanarayana W.G.Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for respondent No.4:MR. M.JANARDHANA RAO FOR K.CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not paying compensation to the petitioner or referring the dispute to the competent civil Court for decision in respect of land of an extent of Ac.1.75 cents in R.S.Nos.20/3, 20/4, 22/4 of 100 of Ramannapalem Village in T Narasapuram Mandal, despite the petitioner’s objections, dated 01.02.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri N.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Janardhana Rao, learned counsel representing respondent No.4. The land of an extent of Ac.1.75 cents comprised in R.S.Nos.20/3, 20/4, 22/4 out of 100 of Ramannapalem Village, T Narasapuram Mandal, was acquired for the purpose of foreshore submersion of Yerrakalva Reservoir Project. The petitioner claims that she is entitled to seek compensation in respect of the above-mentioned land. However, respondent No.2 passed award No.4 of 2005, dated 12.01.2005, wherein he accepted the claim of respondent No.4 and held that she is entitled to payment of compensation. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner’s name was notified in the draft notification as the person interested in the land in question, she was not given notices under Sections 9(3) and 10(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) nor a copy of the award was served on her. The petitioner further stated that on coming to know of the passing of award on 12.01.2005, she filed her objections on 01.02.2005 and sought for reference of dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the contents of the award reveal that necessary notices were served on all the persons interested and that since the petitioner failed to make a claim, the claim of respondent No.4 was accepted on the basis of the material produced by her in the award enquiry. I have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner pleaded that respondent No.3 issued notice, dated 24.12.2004 asking her to appear before him and explain the discrepancy with respect to the details mentioned in the Will and that she appeared and submitted proof of title including registered Will, pattadar passbooks, title deeds etc., and that respondent No.3 did not conduct any further enquiry in that regard. She further pleaded that as no further notices were received by the petitioner, she submitted representation, dated 01.02.2005 to respondent No.2 which was forwarded to respondent No.3 and that respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that he already recommended to respondent No.2 for payment of 2/3rd of the compensation to respondent No.4 and 1/3rd of the compensation to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that though the petitioner’s name was mentioned in the notification as the person interested, she did not attend the award enquiry to establish her right over the land in question. It is further stated that in pursuance of the award, payments were already made to respondent No.4. It is not mentioned as to when award enquiry notices were served on the petitioner for conducting enquiry by respondent No.2. Without giving notice to the petitioner and giving her reasonable opportunity of hearing, respondent No.2 ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for compensation. Having carefully considered the facts of the case, I am of the view that in the face of the bona fide dispute raised by the petitioner, respondent No.2 ought to have given her an opportunity to substantiate her claim. As no material is placed before the Court to show that such an opportunity was given to the petitioner, I find this a fit case to direct respondent No.2 to refer the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 30 of the Act to enable the petitioner to prove her claim. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to refer the dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. However, having regard to the fact that 2/3rd of the compensation was already paid to respondent No.4, I am not inclined to direct respondent No.4 to pay back the said amount at this stage pending decision by the competent civil Court. The payment already made to respondent No.4 shall, however, be subject to the result of the proceedings of the civil Court. As regards 1/3rd of the compensation, to which the petitioner is admittedly entitled to receive, respondent No.2 is directed to pay the same to the petitioner without prejudice to the contentions raised by her in the dispute to be adjudicated by the civil Court. The competent civil Court is directed to receive the reference and adjudicate the same on merits without insistence on deposit of the amount under Section 31 of the Act. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 26th June, 2008. kvni