Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash award No.12/NH/2011, dated 24-08-2011, of respondent No.2 so far as it relates to the direction to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.23,35,021/- awarded in respect of lands admeasuring 1,497 square meters in Survey No.110/1C1 of Thukivakam Village accounts, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, in the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. The above-mentioned land was acquired for widening and 4-laning of National Highway No.205 on the stretch of land from Km 274/800 to Km 304/170 (Tirupathi – Andhra Pradesh/Tamilnadu Border Section). The petitioner has participated in the award enquiry and claimed compensation as the original owner of the abovementioned property. She has claimed ownership over the property through a sale made by the South Andhra Luthern Church, Central Church Office, Tirupathi. In the award enquiry, the Chairman and Treasurer of the South Andhra Luthern Church, Central Church Office, Tirupathi, has deposed before respondent No.2 that the said Church has sold away the abovementioned land acquired for road widening to the petitioner through a registered sale deed and delivered possession thereof to her. Accordingly, the original owner of the subject land has conveyed his no objection for payment of compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 has determined a sum of Rs.23,35,021/- as total compensation payable in respect of the above-mentioned land. However, based on the report of the Tahsildlar, Renigunta, that a civil dispute over the said property is pending in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, in OS.No.735 of 2008 between the petitioner and one person viz., Dr.Kumpati Rajendra Prasad and 2 others, respondent No.2 has referred the purported dispute to the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, under sub-Section 4 of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). This part of the impugned award of respondent No.2 to the extent of reference of the dispute to the civil Court is assailed in this Writ Petition. Even though the case was adjourned twice, no counter-affidavit is filed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents has made her submissions based on the instructions received from respondent Nos.2 and 3. Even though the case was adjourned twice, no counter-affidavit is filed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents has made her submissions based on the instructions received from respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner pleaded that she is the rightful owner of the subject property; that in the year 1984, she has filed OS.No.651 of 1984 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirupathi, for permanent injunction against certain third parties; that the said suit was decreed in her favour and that when the said decree was violated, she filed EP.No.296 of 2008 complaining of violation of the injunction decree. It is further averred that when the followers and family members of the judgment debtors in OS.No.651 of 1984 including one PDL.Ravi Kumar started interfering with the petitioner’s possession, she has filed OS.No.735 of 2008 on 18-08-2008 for injunction against the said persons; that except PDL. Ravi Kumar, others have remained ex parte; that the said person has filed a written statement in the suit and that the same is pending. The petitioner further pleaded that despite the objections raised by the said PDL. Ravi Kumar, the Tahsildar has mutated her name in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in her favour. It is, therefore, the pleaded case of the petitioner that since the said PDL.Ravi Kumar was unlawfully interfering with her possession of the subject property, she had to file a civil suit, which is pending and that the same has nothing to do with the title over the said property. Mr. V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that neither PDL. Ravi Kumar nor any other person had approached respondent No.2 by way of a claim petition claiming compensation and that respondent No.2 has taken into consideration the facts extraneous to his functioning as the competent authority for passing the award. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition sought to justify the award of respondent No.2 by stating that since there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and third parties, respondent No.2 has justifiably referred the dispute to the civil Court. Section 3G of the Act enjoins upon the competent authority to determine the amount of compensation for the lands acquired under the Act. Section 3G of the Act enjoins upon the competent authority to determine the amount of compensation for the lands acquired under the Act. Under sub-Section 3 thereof, the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land acquired, before determining the compensation. Such notice shall state the particulars of land and require all persons interested therein to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state any of their respective interests in such land. After hearing all the objectors, the competent authority shall determine the compensation and refer the dispute to arbitrator, if the amount determined by him is not acceptable to either of the parties. Under Sub-Section 3 of Section 3H, where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited by the Central Government consequent on determination of compensation, the competent authority shall determine the persons, who, in its opinion, are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. Under Sub-Section 4 thereof, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction, the land is situated. On the admitted facts of this case, no person other than the petitioner has approached respondent No.2 claiming compensation. In the absence of any such competing claim for payment of compensation, there can be no question of any dispute arising either as to the person, who is entitled to receive compensation, or to its apportionment. The provisions of Sections 3G and 3H of the Act or for that matter any other provision of the Act do not authorize the competent authority to take cognizance of any dispute pending before a Court between two parties. Such disputes do not fall within the ambit of ‘dispute’ referred to in Section 3H (4) of the Act. The provisions of Sections 3G and 3H of the Act or for that matter any other provision of the Act do not authorize the competent authority to take cognizance of any dispute pending before a Court between two parties. Such disputes do not fall within the ambit of ‘dispute’ referred to in Section 3H (4) of the Act. Unless more than one claimant approaches the competent authority or any person makes a claim in response to the public notice issued under Section 3G (3) of the Act, it cannot be said that a dispute within the meaning of Section 3H (4) has arisen before the competent authority. I am, therefore, of the opinion that respondent No.2 has acted contrary to the scheme of the provisions of Sections 3G and 3H in referring a non-existent dispute to the civil Court and depositing the compensation in the Court. The impugned award to this extent, therefore, cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside. As the claim of the petitioner that she is the owner of the subject property has not been rebutted by any party before respondent No.2, the latter shall pay the compensation therefor, as determined by him in award, dated 24-08-2011, to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel, interim order, dated 05-10-2012, is vacated and WPMP.No.39714 of 2012 is disposed of.