IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.31421 and 31547 of 2010 W.P.No.31421 of 2010 Between: Nandipally Sugunamma. … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Abhishek Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.31421 and 31547 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- These two Writ Petitions pertain to the common subject matter. Therefore, they are heard and being disposed of together. For convenience, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.31421 of 2010 is referred as “the petitioner” and the petitioner in the other Writ Petition, namely; Writ Petition No.31547 of 2010 is referred as “the contesting respondent” even though he is not a party to Writ Petition No.31421 of 2010. The petitioner, who is the owner of Ac.0.11 guntas of land in Namnoor Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, filed Writ Petition No.31421 of 2010 feeling aggrieved by non-payment of Rs.14,94,797/- towards compensation for acquiring the said land. The contesting respondent filed Writ Petition No.31547 of 2010 for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not referring the dispute as to apportionment of compensation in respect of the acquired property. All the acquisition proceedings were issued in the name of the petitioner. A draft award was passed on 24.12.2009 and the same was approved by the District Collector on 11.01.2010, wherein the sum of Rs.14,94,797/- was awarded to the petitioner. The contesting respondent has approached the District Legal Service Authority by way of a pre-litigation case, which was dismissed prior to the passing of the award. The fact remains that the contesting respondent has not made any claim for compensation in response to the general notice issued under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is only much after the award was passed that such a claim was made. In my opinion, unless the contesting respondent has made his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer, he cannot be termed as a person interested within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act. The contesting respondent cannot, therefore, be treated as a person, who is aggrieved by the award and consequently he has no right to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. The only remedy available to him is to approach the competent civil Court for declaration of his right to receive compensation from the person to whom it is awarded. In the light of the above facts, no relief can be granted to the contesting respondent in his Writ Petition except to the extent of giving him liberty to file a civil suit. Writ Petition No.31547 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed, subject to the said observation. Writ Petition No.31421 of 2010 is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith pay compensation to the petitioner, which will be subject to the result of the civil suit that may be filed by the contesting respondent. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39966 of 2010 inW.P.No.31421 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous and WPMP.No.40132 of 2010 in W.P.No 31547 of 2010 is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.11.2011 ES