THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.6330 of 2014

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

‘This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents declaring the act of the respondents as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice for not referring the matter to the civil court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the proper adjudication for enhancement of the compensation in the land acquisition proceedings regarding the Sy.No.645 to the extent of Ac.12-23 gts Situated at Village Bhainsa, Mandal Bhainsa, District Adilabad, which is being acquired for the public purpose to wit for due submergence in SUDDAVAGU PROJECT BHAINSA (RIGHT FLANK), as per notification in the district Gazette No.1/2001 dated 08-01-2001 Proc.No.1 and direct the respondents to refer the matter to the Civil Court, Nirmal, for the proper adjudication pertaining to the enhancement of the compensation according to the market value and also pass such other order of orders as the Honble court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.’

2. None appears for the petitioner. Heard learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner’s husband was owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.645 situated at Bhainsa Village, Nirmal Mandal, Adilabad District (now Nirmal District); that out of the land belonging to the petitioner’s husband, land to an extent of Acs.12.23 guntas was acquired by the respondents for sub-mergence due to Suddavagu Project Bhainsa (Right Flank) by issuing land acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’); and that the respondents-authorities pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act have passed award dt.07.03.2002 in respect of the petitioner’s husband’s land and other lands getting affected by the sub-mergence.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the respondents passing the award acquiring the land and determining the compensation payable thereunder, insofar as the land of the petitioner’s husband to an extent of Acs.12.23 guntas in Sy.No.645 of Bhainsa Village is concerned, as there were rival claims, the District Collector had made a reference under section 30 of the Act to the Court for resolving the dispute as to apportionment of compensation of the land and the compensation; that on the District Collector making reference to the Court under Section 30 of the Act, the reference was taken on record by the Court, vide O.P.No.74 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal; that the trial Court by its order dt.11.02.2013 had held that the petitioner herein being the legal representative of claimant No.5 in the award proceeding is entitled to receive compensation to the extent of Acs.12.23 guntas out of the acquired land in Sy.No.645.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the competent Court adjudicating the dispute as to the apportionment on a reference under Section 30 of the Act, by its order dt.11.02.2013, the petitioner not agreeing to the compensation determined under the award, had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted an application on 15.03.2013, seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.

6. Petitioner further contends that only upon the competent Court adjudicating the dispute as to apportionment on a reference made by the District Collector under Section 30 of the Act, holding the claimant No.5 being entitled to receive compensation and the petitioner having come on record as legal heir of claimant No.5 in the O.P.No.74 of 2003, would be entitled to make application seeking reference under Section 18 of the