JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by Respondent No. 24 in L.A.O.P. No. 12 of 2004, challenging the order made under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, wherein the claim of the appellant was considered only to the extent of 322 square yards, leaving 200 square yards in plot No. 127, as illegal and incorrect. 2. The facts in issue are as under: An extent of Ac. 20.91 cents of land was acquired in C. Mallavaram Village for formation of Renigunta-Chandragiri road and an amount of Rs. 75,71,903/- was awarded as compensation. Apart from the lands referred to in the order, the dispute now relates to land admeasuring Ac. 1.39 cents in S. No. 294/2 of Mallavaram Village. Notices were issued on 1.7.2002 calling upon the interested persons to attend award enquiry. One, B. Chandrasekhar, G.P.A. Holder on behalf of Janachaitanya Housing Private Limited, Tirupati, attended the award enquiry and stated that lands in S. No. 241/2, 242/2B, 294/2 etc. of Mallavaram Village were purchased by the said Organization, lay out was laid and plots carved out therein were sold to several persons. Some of the plot owners attended the award enquiry and claimed compensation for plots bearing Nos. 103, 106 and 107 in S. No. 294/2. But, insofar as plot Nos.100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 110, 116, 120, 124, 125, 128, 166, 168 and 127 in S. No. 294/2, none attended the award enquiry, though notice No. 6 was issued under Section 9(1) and 10 of the Act and published in the locality. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer vide its order dated 20.1.2003 directed deposit of the amount in the civil court under Section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act, as there is no competent person to alienate the land. 3. A reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was made to decide as to whom, the compensation has to be paid in respect of the acquired land. The appellant was respondent No. 24 therein. The said reference came to be numbered as L.A.O.P. No. 12 of 2004 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. 4. A counter came to be filed by the appellant herein stating that she purchased an extent of 536 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 23.5.1998 (Ex.B8) and that she is entitled for compensation to the said extent. The said reference came to be numbered as L.A.O.P. No. 12 of 2004 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. 4. A counter came to be filed by the appellant herein stating that she purchased an extent of 536 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 23.5.1998 (Ex.B8) and that she is entitled for compensation to the said extent. It is further pleaded that she purchased the said extent for a sum of Rs. 75,100/-. It is urged that though none raised any objection with regard to ownership, the R.D.O. erroneously referred the matter under Section 31(2) of the Act. 5. By an order dated 2.6.2008, the Principal Senior Civil Judge in L.A.O.P. No. 12 of 2004 held that the 24th respondent (appellant herein) is entitled to compensation with accrued extent, if any, in respect of 322 square yards, out of the acquired extent in S. No. 294/2B of C. Mallavaram Village. 6. As seen from the record, the dispute is with regard to payment of compensation to 200 square yards of land in S. No. 294/2 i.e. plot No. 127. 7. From the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer it appears that insofar as Plot Nos. 127 and 128 in S. No. 294/2, none appeared during the award enquiry claiming compensation. Hence, the amount was directed to be deposited before the trial court. The reference order made under Section 31(2) of the Act refers to both the plot numbers and the appellant is shown as the owner. But, the order impugned states that though the appellant purchased 536 square yards in plot No. 128, only 322 square yards were acquired. However, the compensation deposited for 322 square yards was directed to be paid to the appellant. 8. Now, the present appeal is filed seeking compensation for 200 square yards of land in S. No. 294/2, which was also said to have been acquired along with plot No. 127. 9. It is urged that appellant is also the owner of plot No. 127, situated in S. No. 294/2 and the reference order also indicates the quantum of compensation awarded, but, there is no reference to plot No. 127 in the impugned order. On the other hand, it has been held that only 322 square yards, out of 536 square yards, were acquired. On the other hand, it has been held that only 322 square yards, out of 536 square yards, were acquired. This finding is said to be erroneous in view of the order by the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference order. 10. It is also to be noted here that none came forward during the award enquiry, seeking compensation towards acquisition of plot No. 127 and plot No. 128. Even in the counter filed in L.A.O.P. No. 12 of 2004, the appellant refers to purchase of 536 square yards vide sale deed dated 23.5.1998. There is no reference to any plot numbers, though the land was divided into plots by then. Probably, for this reason, the reference court awarded compensation to 322 square yards of land out of 536 square yards purchased. 11. Now, as stated earlier, the present appeal is filed claiming compensation for 200 square yards in plot No. 127, which was not claimed in the counter filed before the reference court. 12. The issue as to whether the court below by mistake did not award compensation to 200 square yards of land or whether there was no claim at all or whether the appellant is the owner of 200 square yards of land as well cannot be gone into by this court in this appeal, more so, having regard to the contents of the counter before the reference court. Further, the remaining land out of 536 square yards after payment of compensation to 322 square yards would be 214 square yards. If that is so, why the claim is only for 200 square yards and what happened to 14 square yards. 13. Having regard to above, the L.A.A.S. is allowed, remanding the matter back to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, to decide the claim of the appellant to the extent of 200 square yards (Plot No. 127) in S. No. 294/2B of C. Mallavaram village (compensation of which was said to have been deposited) within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to costs. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.