HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21663 of 2009 Dated: 9th February, 2010 Between: Nagamma. … Petitioner And The District Collector and four others. … Respondents Order: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking for directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not referring the matter to civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inspite of pendency of appeal before respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, one late Akkulappa- father of the petitioner herein, was assigned an extent of Ac.5-13 cents of land situated at Kodur village, Chilamathur Mandal, vide proceedings dated 26.09.1961 in D.A.R.Dis.No.184/71. Later, the said land was resumed by the Government in the year 1995, on the ground that the father of the petitioner i.e., the original assignee has violated the conditions of D-form patta. After resumption of land by the Government, the same was re-assigned to respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein. As the Government has proposed to establish Industrial Park in Chilamathur Mandal, the said land was resumed by the Government from respondent Nos.4 and 5 and compensation was also awarded to them. When respondent Nos.1 to 3 were taking steps for payment of exgratia amount to respondent Nos.4 and 5, this writ petition is filed, seeking directions to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act) to the civil Court. 4. Admittedly, the land in question was not notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Act, in the absence of which, the petitioner cannot seek for any reference under Section 30 of the Act. In any event, though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that she has questioned the assignment given in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 by filing an appeal, but it is to be noticed that the land was already resumed to the Government, from the father of the petitioner in the year 1995 itself, on the ground that he has violated the conditions of D-form patta. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has not questioned such resumption orders, she cannot seek directions as prayed for, questioning the steps taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for payment of exgratia amount in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court on 09.10.2009, stands vacated. No order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th February 2010 LMV