Tota Venkat Reddy And Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 13 October, 1999
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the
directions of this Court have not been fully implemented, the award suffers with various infirmities. Even though adjacent lands were acquired and the compensation was fixed at Rs.4.61 ps. per sq. yard, in respect of the land in question, the value was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per acre which is grossly disproportionate and the arbitrariness being writ at large. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the land acquisition officer has no power to refer the matter under Section 30 of the ACT to the competent civil Court and also implead the Commissioner, Municipality, Special Officer and competent authority. Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad. Under Section 30 of the Act, if there is any dispute with regard to the title of the land, it is open for the Collector lo refer the matter to the Civil Court. In the instant case, there is no such dispute at all. On the other hand, the Government itself accepted that the land is a patta land belonging to the department, in such a situation, the action of the Collector in referring the matter under Section 30 of the Act is mala fide. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment reported in P. Appalamurthy v. Slate of Andhra Pradesh, , M/s. Singareni Galleries Company Limited v. K Safycmarcyana Miirlhy, 1983 (2) APLJ 405, and D. Vijayalakshmi v. District Collector, Krishna, .