THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.22877,22878, 22888, 22894 and 22899 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Similar questions arise in this batch of ﬁve writ petitions. The petitioners are the owners or occupants of various premises on the road from Narayanaguda to Liberty. The premises were notiﬁed for acquisition in the context of widening of the road. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) was published on 14.02.2008 and urgency clause was invoked. Within a short time, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. Award enquiry was taken up by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, the third respondent. The petitioners state that an award was passed by the third respondent on 10.08.2008 contrary to the entitlement of various persons mentioned therein. It is represented that while some claimants were awarded compensation in respect of more premises than one, such as ground ﬂoor, ﬁrst ﬂoor and second ﬂoor, others were not extended such a beneﬁt. By urging this and other similar ground, the petitioners assail the award, dated 10.08.2008. On behalf of the respondents, it is represented that the amount covered by the award has since been disbursed and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the method adopted in the award, they can seek redressal under Section 18 of the Act. Heard Smt.D.Pramada, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners did not challenge the acquisition of their premises as such. Their grievance is limited to the manner in which the apportionment was made under the award. The power and jurisdiction of a Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, in the context of adjudication of claims of the owners of the acquired land, is very limited. In case there exists any agreement or consensus among various claimants, he can apportion the compensation accordingly. On the other hand, if the disputes persist, he has to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act, to a Civil Court. It is not as if that any arrangement made or the rate at which the compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer is ﬁnal. An aggrieved party can seek reference under Section 18 of the Act, be it as regards the quantum of compensation or apportionment made under the award. A perusal of the award discloses that the third respondent proceeded as though there was agreement among various claimants for diﬀerent extents of property acquired under the notiﬁcation. Even assuming that his understanding of the matter is not correct, the petitioners can assail the course adopted by the third respondent by seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioners to submit an application under Section 18 of the Act before the third respondent, who, in turn, shall take immediate steps for making a reference to the Civil Court. On such reference being made, it shall be open to the petitioners to put forward their claims as regards enhancement of compensation or apportionment of the amount awarded. As and when such reference is made, the Civil Court concerned shall endeavour to dispose of the same, as early as possible, and not later than one year from the date of receipt of the reference. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.10.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl