IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21346 of 2008 Between: Smt.Bodemma W/o.Pedda Gopanna @ Kurva Gopadu, R/o. Aloor Village, Ghattu Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue & Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Spl. Collector, Land Acquisition, Bheema Project, Mahabubnagar District. 3. The Spl. Collector, Land Acquisition, Jawahar Lift Irrigation Project, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. 4. Mallaiah S/o.Chinna Gopanna, R/o.Mantralayam (vill.) Yemmiganoor Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. Smt.Parvathamma W/o.Buddanna, R/o. Obulonipally Village of Dharoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 6. Govindu S/o.Nallenna, R/o.Aloor Village, Ghattu Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 7. Smt.Malamma W/o.Muneppa, R/o.Aloor Village, Ghattu Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 8. Edenna S/o.Munenna, R/o.Aloor Village, Ghattu Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 9. Buddenna S/o.Munenna, R/o.Aloor Village, Ghattu Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in referring the matter to Civil Court U/Sec.30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and disbursement of amount to wrong persons i.e., respondent No.4 to 9 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court U/Sec.30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.ACHUTA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21346 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in referring the matter covered by award No.136 of 2008 dated 20.02.2008 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition-the third respondent herein, to a Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for brevity). The petitioner has furnished the genealogy of her family. It is stated that her father-in-law, by name Pilli Buddanna, held vast extent of land in diﬀerent survey numbers and that through a notiﬁcation dated 30.12.2006, lands in survey Nos.247, 251, 252 and 255 held by their family were notiﬁed for acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that consequent upon the death of petitioner’s husband, she has migrated to her parents’ place and taking advantage of the same, respondents 4 to 9 have laid claim for compensation. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.74 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction and the third respondent is also a defendant in the suit. He contends that having regard to the nature of the plea, the third respondent ought to have referred the matter to Civil Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents. The petitioner has already set the law in motion by ﬁling O.S.No.74 of 2007 seeking declaration of her rights. The land that was covered by the notiﬁcation under Section 4 (1) of the Act is also one of the items in the suit. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has impleaded the third respondent also to ensure that the award is comprehensive. On a perusal of the award, it is clear that no claim as such was received during the award enquiry. Further, when once the petitioner has approached the Civil Court for declaration of rights, it cannot be said that she can be paid any amounts straight away. The petitioner could have obtained necessary orders in the pending suit vis-à-vis the award also. Such a step, however, has not been taken. Be that as it may, once petitioner has already instituted a suit to enforce her rights; the mere fact that the matter is not referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act does not make it a difference. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedies in the pending suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 6th November 2008 RRB