ORDER

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri R. Pavan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri B. Buchi Babu, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though the respondent authorities have passed an Award dated 30.06.2023 in the name of her husband determining the compensation amount payable in a sum of Rs.61,89,101/-, the said amount has not been paid to her by the respondents till date being the wife of the deceased Awardee.

3. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent authorities having determined the compensation amount in respect of the land acquired under the Award belonging to her husband, ought not to have withheld the compensation amount awarded on the pretext of pendency of Civil Suit vide O.S. No.33 of 2023 and also not having initiated action under Section 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation, and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’) by depositing the said amount with the authority under Section 64 of the Act.

4. Petitioner further contends that due to the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in neither paying compensation amount as determined under the Award in the name of the petitioner’s husband or making a reference to the authority under Section 76 of the Act amounts to the respondent authorities depriving the petitioner of her right to receive the compensation amount in respect of the property belonging to her husband, which action it is contended is highly illegal and arbitrary.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submits that though the respondent authorities have passed an Award dated 30.06.2023 in respect of the land of the petitioner’s husband to an extent of 4,954 square yards and also having determined the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.61,89,101/-, the said compensation amount could not be paid on account of a claim received from one P. Ramadevi, the 6th respondent herein, claiming herself to be the daughter of the 1^st wife of the petitioner’s husband and as such entitled to share in the aforesaid compensation amount determined by the authority.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the Land Acquisition Authority is not competent to go into the aspects of apportionment of compensation, the authorities required to make reference under Section 76 of the Act to the authority constituted under Section 64 of the Act.

7. Learned Government Pleader fairly submits that the respondent authorities however did not make reference under Section 76 of the Act to the authority under Section 64 of the Act as of date and if this Court were to show indulgence, the authorities would undertake the exercise of making a reference under Section 76 of the Act to the authority, as may be directed by this Court.

8. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the fact that an Award has been passed in the name of the petitioner’s husband determining the compensation amount payable in a sum of Rs.61,89,101/-; and the Awardee having deceased, the compensation amount awarded is required to be apportioned among the legal heirs of Sri P. Venkat Rao, the Awardee. However, as the 6^th respondent herein had raised an objection for apportionment of the compensation, the authority was required to make a reference under Section 76 of the Act inasmuch as the respondent authorities are not competent to decide disputes relating to apportionment. However, for the reasons best known the respondent authority did not make reference under Section 76 of the Act till date.

9. However, taking note of the fact that the compensation amount determined has not been paid by the respondent authorities on the ground of existence of a dispute as to apportionment, this Court