The Land Acquisition Officer has the jurisdiction to go into disputed questions of title and apportionment of compensation. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is available only to a person who was not present or represented before the Land Acquisition Officer during the award proceedings and who has a pre-existing right or has acquired a right since the passing of the award to the compensation.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of Amareswari, J. allowing to the Land Acquisition officer to make a reference to Civil Court in the matter of apportionment of the compensation payable for the land concerned herein. The writ appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition.

( 2 ) SURVEY No. 886 of Bekkar village was sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification mentioned only the name of the appellant as the person interested in the land. While the proceedings were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, the 1st respondent in the writ appeal (who will be referred to hereinafter as the "writ petitioner") filed an application claiming exclusive title to the land acquired, and denying that the appellant has any right, claim, or interest therein. According to him, the father of the appellant was a tenant, after whose death the appellant initiated proceedings under section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, for the issuance of a certificate validating an alleged scale in respect of the said land, but which proceedings were dismissed by the Tahsildar. He submitted further that the appellant was only in permissive possession of the land, and not entitled to any part of the compensation. He further submitted:-"under the above circumstances, it is just and essential to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court and this office is not competent to determine the rival claim under the provisions of the L. A. Act. It is therefore prayed that the matter of awarding compensation in respect of the above properties may be referred to the competent Civil Court enabling the parties to establish their claims under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. . . . . . . "the appellant, however, denied the writ petitioners claim. According to him, though his family was formerly a protected tenant of this land, they had purchased it later and that, they have been in possession of then land as owners for the last about 30 years.

( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer Went into the rival claims put forward by the appellant and the writ petitioner and, on a consideration of the material produced by them, upheld the appellants claim and rejected the contention of the writ petitioner, while passing the award. The Land Acquisition Officer held in his award that the Record of Rights and the continuous possession of the appellant for more than 5 years prove this undisputed ownership. He emphasised the fact that, his name is recorded as Pattadar in then Khasra Pahani (Record of Rights) and the subsequent Pahanies. He also held that the continuous possession of the appellant for of 25 years would extinguish the title of the writ petitioner, even if he had any, sometime ago. Having upheld the appellants exclusive claim, the Land Acquisition officer further observed:-"as such, I see no reason to refer the matter to the Civil Court, inasmuch as the objection petitioner (writ petitioner) failed to show the valid grounds to make a reference to the Court. In view of the above facts, the compensation of S. No. 886 is awarded to Sri Govind Venkata Reddy (appellant herein ). . . . . . "the relevant portion of the award dealing with the rival claims and contentions was communicated to the writ-petitioner. however, he did not choose to apply under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference to Civil Court. He straightway approached this court by way of W. P. No. 5096/1977. He asked for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to Civil Court in respect of the compensation payable for the said land.

( 4 ) THE learned single judge observed that the only question for consideration is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Land Acquisition officer has exercised his discretion properly in declining to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 3