The Ceiling Act prevails over the Land Acquisition Act in cases where there is a dispute as to the entitlement to compensation due to the operation of the Ceiling Act.

( 1 ) THE four petitioners impugn in this writ petition the validity of a reference under S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. for short "the-Act", as illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

( 2 ) THE indisputable facts are: An extent of Ac. 29. 18 guntee of land in surveys Nos. 52, 2. 56, 2. 57 and 58 situated in Peerzadi-guda, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was acquired by publication of a notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act dt. 29/03/1979 for construction of a bus-stand for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Enquiry under S. 5-A was dispensed with. A declaration under S. 6 was also published. Possession of the land was taken on 4/07/1979. The award was passed on Sept. 23. 1986. Therein, a reference was made under S. 30 of the Act to the Civil Court and deposited the compensation amount awarded under the award. The Government in G. O. Ms. No. 2554 Revenue dt. Sept. 22,1986 directed the Land Acquisition Officer who. passed the award in respect of the lands covered under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 33 of 1976, for short "ceiling Act", and to deposit the amount of compensation to the credit of the case and to keep the, matter pending finalisation of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act by. the Special. Officer. In pursuance thereof, the above, reference was made. Admittedly, the lands are situated within the Hyderabad Agglomeration. The Ceiling Act came into force on 17/02/1976. The petitioners filed declarations under S. 6. Computation of the excess ceiling area is pending adjudication;

( 3 ) THE contention of Sri M. Jeevan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after a thorough preparation of the case, is" that for invocation of S. 30 of the Act the existence of a dispute of either title to or the entitlement to receive compensation in total or portion thereof is a condition precedent; that in this case there is no dispute as regards either title or apportionment or entitlement of the compensation awarded under S. 11 of the Act; and since possession of the land was taken on 4/07/1979, the land vested in the Government free of all encumbrances and thereby the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation in total without any reference to the Civil Court. Those contentions are resisted, on notice given to Sri Subba Reddy, the learned Addl. Advocate General on the following contentions. Once a declaration under S. 6 of the Ceiling Act has been made, there is no abatement of the proceedings consequent on the acquisition of the land under the Act; that the determination of the excess Vacant land is to be computed under the Ceiling Act; by interposition of the operation of law the excess area stands vested in the Government under S. 10 (3); thereby the Government entitles itself to lay compensation for the excess land to be determined under the Ceiling Act; that by operation of the Act there arises a dispute whether the petitioners are entitled to the entire compensation or a portion thereof; that is a matter to be adjudicated by the Civil Court under S. 30 of the Act after the decision made under the Ceiling Act by the Special Officer or on an appeal thereon and till then the petitioners cannot claim absolute right to the compensation. Thereby the reference under S. 30 is clearly valid and is not vitiated by any error of law. He further contended that the writ-of mandamus or certiorari as sought for cannot be granted to defeat the provisions of the Act.

( 4 ) THE primary question, therefore, is whether the reference under S. 30 is valid in law. . , :

( 5 ) SECTION 30 of the Act which deals with disputes as to apportionment of compensation postulates thus :"when the amount of compensation has been settled under S. 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. "therefore, if there ex