IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16805 OF 2009 DATED:8.6.2011 Between: Tene Ramaiah and others … Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Oficer-cum- Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Bhadrachalam Unit Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and others … Respondents … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 : G.P. for Land Acquisition Counsel for the respondent No.3 : Sri G.V. Shivaji THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16805 OF 2009 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. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not referring the dispute relating to the persons who are entitled to receive compensation in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.36.85 cents in Sy. No.4/2, Ac.8.00 in Sy. No.59/2, Ac.4.77 cents in S. No.24, Ac.0.34 cents in S. No.70/1, Ac.0.03 cents in Sy. No.74/1 and Ac.2.60 cents in Sy. No.35/5 of Nandigama Village, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District, and seeking to pay compensation in favour of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners have pleaded that the above-mentioned lands which are notified for acquisition under Notification dated 19.12.2008 published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) originally belong to their grand-father and that after his death the petitioner’s father is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is their further case that the mother of the respondent No.3 filed a petition before the Settlement Officer for grant of patta under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement) Regulation, 1970 (Regulation II of 1970) in the year 1977 and that the said petition was allowed on 10.1.1980 without notice to the affected parties and that against the said order the petitioners’ father filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements and the said appeal was allowed on 30.3.1984 and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioners that after remand, the Settlement Officer granted patta to the mother of respondent No.3 on 7.11.2003 by which time the petitioners’ father died in the year 1997 itself and without adding the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased father and without notice to them, the said order was passed, that the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Director of Settlements on 3.8.2009 against the order of the Settlement Officer which is stated to be pending. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 without considering the bona fide claim of the petitioners has unilaterally notified respondent No.3 as the owner of the land and has been trying to pay the compensation to him. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he has claimed title through the patta granted by the Settlement Officer on 7.11.2003. I have heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Under Section 30 of the Act, when the amount of compensation has been settled, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount 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(2) of the Act, if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. A Division Bench of this Court in Govindu Venkata Reddy v. K. Krishna Rao[1] while interpreting Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, held as under: “Thus, the Land Acquisition Act indicates a clear-cut scheme on the questions at issue, viz., where conflicting claims to the land acquired, or to the compensation payable, are preferred before the Collector (Land Acquisition Officer). He may choose either to decide the matter himself, or to refer the same to Civil Court. If he chooses to follow the first alternative, he will determine the area of the land, the amount of compensation, and also the persons who, according to him, are entitled to compensation, and pass an award incorporating his decision on all these three questions. In such a case, the only remedy of the person aggrieved by the award is to ask for a reference under Section 18, within the period of limitation prescribed therein. If such an application is made, the Collector is bound to make a reference, notwithstanding his decision on the applicant’s claims, and he is also bound to deposit the amount in the Court. But where he chooses to adopt the second alternative, he will determine the area of the land, the quantum of compensation, and then make a suo motu reference under Section 30 of the Act to Civil Court, to decide the conflicting claims of the claimants before him. In such a case also, he has to send the amount of compensation determined by him, to the Court. Besides the above, a person who was not present or represented before the Collector during the award enquiry had a right to raise a dispute as to apportionment or with respect to the right to receive the compensation, before the Collector, after the passing of the award. But, in such a case, the Collector may, or may not make a reference, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; and if Collector refuses to make such a reference, the only remedy of the persons concerned would be to institute a suit to establish his claims and contentions.” At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on instructions stated that as there is a dispute between the petitioners on one side and the respondent No.3 on the other, the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, is proposing to refer the same to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that unless the petitioners show prima facie title to the property under acquisition, the Special Deputy Collector cannot refer the dispute to the Civil Court in a routine manner. In my opinion, the expression “dispute” in Section 31(2) of the Act shall be construed as a bona fide dispute. The Collector is competent to examine whether prima facie the dispute is bona fide or not before deciding to refer the same to the Civil Court for determination. In other words, if there is clear evidence of title in favour of one of the parties, he is entitled to take a decision in favour of such party and in that event the aggrieved party can seek reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Even though both the parties have sought to trace their respective title to the property in question, it is not proper for this Court to delve into this aspect at this stage while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of the respondent No.1 to examine the rival claims of the petitioners and the respondent No.3 and take a decision in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to Respondent No.1 to consider the objections filed by the petitioners, take a decision and pass an appropriate Award in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.V.M.P. No.6056 of 2010 and W.P.M.P. No.22062 of 2009, filed by the respective parties, are disposed of. ________________________ (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 08.6.2011 bnr Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B.O) bnr [1] AIR 1982 AP 86