S. Manikumar, J.

1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, respondent No. 3, in B1/644/2008, dated 05.01.2012, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, pursuant to Award No. 1 of 2010, dated 15.10.2010 (S. No. 24) and consequently, prayed for a direction to respondent No. 3, to amend or modify the reference dated 05.06.2012 by deleting "Section 30" so as to read, as a reference under Sections 18(1) and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to enable the petitioner to process the "Payment Out Petition" filed before the learned VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Record of proceedings shows that on 11.02.2014, this Court has passed the following orders:

"Material on record discloses that in W.P. No. 20492 of 2011, when the petitioner therein sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, the 3rd respondent therein, to refer Award No. 1/2010 dated 15.10.2010, in so far as the petitioner land is concerned, to the Civil Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the then Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, has made a categorical statement that he has made necessary arrangements to send the cases, referred under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Recording the same, the writ petition W.P. No. 20492 of 2011, has been disposed of on 13.10.2011. In this context, the Court has perused the letter of the Tahsildar dated 13.09.2011.

2. Material on record further discloses that subsequently, the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, has been deposited in the City Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, vide letter in B1/644/2008 dated 05.01.2012, the petitioner has been informed. Perusal of the proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, dated 05.01.2012, makes it clear that the petitioner/owner of the land in S. No. 3856/38 measuring 1428 sq. ft., has only declined to receive the compensation amount and that there is no dispute over the ownership of the land.

3. When that is the case, it is not known as to how the Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, could deposit the amount, by invoking Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As assured earlier, vide letter dated 13.09.2011, reference should have been made under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

4. Attention of this Court was also invited to the endorsement made by the learned VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, that when the petitioner sought for payment of Rs. 1,08,57,670/-, amount said to have been deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer and Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk, Chennai, by award No. 1 of 2010 dated 15.10.2010, to the credit of LAOP No. 48 of 2012, the request has been denied.

5. According to the petitioner, the reference should have been made only under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that there is a mistake, Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader, is directed to produce the entire records and also to get appropriate instructions on the above aspects.

6. Post on 13.02.2014, in the motion list."

3. On this day, on instructions and by inviting the attention of this Court to Sub-Sections 1 and 2 of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that though on making an Award under Section 11 of the Act, the District Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them, in certain circumstances, like in a case, where payment is prevente