ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners prays for writ of mandamus declaring the action of official respondents 3 and 4 in proposing to pay the entire compensation amount of Rs.13,23,877/- to the unofficial respondent No. 7 exclusively instead of paying only 1/6th share therein to her in respect of the acquired land in an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 of Dandangi Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of The Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short "Act 30 of 2013"] and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to pay compensation till the title dispute determined under the Act. 2. Petitioners' case succinctly is thus: (a) The petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the wife of 3rd petitioner and 7th respondent are own sisters and they are the daughters of late Mutyala Kondala Rayudu of Chinnaramanayyapeta, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. They were granted ryotwari patta for an extent of Ac.7.56 cents in R.S. No.158 and Ac.1.51 cents in S.No.187/4 of Dandangi Village after Dandagiri Zamindari Estate was abolished under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotvari) Act, 1948 and taken over by the Government on 10.09.1952. A joint patta was issued in favour of the petitioners and the 7th respondent and since then all of them have been enjoying the aforesaid land jointly and their names were incorporated in fair adangal of Dandagiri Village and pattadar passbooks were also issued in the year 1980 incorporating the names of the six sisters. (b) While so, in the year 2012 the Government for the purpose of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project acquired 88.710 hectares of land including the aforesaid land of the petitioners and 7th respondent by following the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. In the Form No.IX, the names of the petitioners and 7th respondent were shown as claimants for Ac. 7.56 cents and Ac. 1.51 cents covered by survey Nos. 158 and 187/4. In the Form No.IX, the names of the petitioners and 7th respondent were shown as claimants for Ac. 7.56 cents and Ac. 1.51 cents covered by survey Nos. 158 and 187/4. After passing of the award, the petitioners and 7th respondent approached the 4th respondent for payment of compensation and accordingly with respect to the land in an extent of Ac.7.56 cents covered by Sy.No.158, all the six sisters were paid compensation amount of Rs.66,28,152 @ Rs.11,04.692/- per head. However the remaining extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 is concerned, the Acquisition Authorities informed that the compensation amount will be paid to the rightful owners after the clearance of the title disputes among the family members and accordingly notice dated 14.05.2015 U/s 37[2] Rule 26 of the Act 30 of 2013 was issued by the authorities to the petitioners and 7th respondents. Pursuant to it, the petitioners submitted a representation to respondents 3 and 4 requesting to pay the compensation to all the sharers equally. When there was no response, the petitioners again sent a representation dated 26.10.2015 to the authorities ether to pay compensation equally to the 6 sisters or refer the matter to the competent authorities U/s 64 of Act 30 of 2013 to resolve the dispute. While the matter stood, on enquiry the petitioners came to know that the 4th respondent/LAO was proposing to pay the compensation amount to the 7th respondent and in fact, prepared a bill dated 19.12.2015 and directed the 8th respondent to pay the entire compensation to the 7th respondent exclusively. Hence the writ petitioners got issued legal notice dated 14.12.2015 to the 4th 4th respondent but there was no response. Hence the writ petition. 3. 4th respondent filed counter. (a) While admitting the land acquisition proceedings, it is stated that an Award No. 4 of 2015 dated 05.05.2015 was passed and was approved by the 3rd respondent for acquiring the land admeasuring Ac.91.27 cents in Sy.No.155 etc of Dandangi Village of Devipatnam Mandal which was going to be sub-merged under Polavaram Irrigation Project. (b) The 7th respondent has submitted representation requesting to pay compensation for Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 by producing the partition deed, PPB, Adangal copy and I-B copy etc standing in her favour. (b) The 7th respondent has submitted representation requesting to pay compensation for Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 by producing the partition deed, PPB, Adangal copy and I-B copy etc standing in her favour. The compensation for the said land was not paid because of the representation made by the writ petitioners requesting not to make payment in full to 7th respondent as they were also shareholders for the said extent. However, the petitioners did not produce any documents to prove their shares in the said land except submitting a settlement order and fair adangal copies in which their names were also recorded. On verification of the documents produced by the 7th respondent, it was revealed that the properties vested to their parents were partitioned during the year 1974 i.e., prior to the issue of settlement orders and pattas during 1976. The parents of petitioners and 7th respondent expire before issuance of settlement order. (c) In view of the rival claims, the Tahsildar, Devipatnam was requested to send a detailed report regarding possession and enjoyment of the disputed land in an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4. The Tahsildar submitted his enquiry report stating that the lands in question were under the possession and enjoyment of the 7th respondent herein. Considering the same, a bill was submitted to the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer for sanction of Rs.13,23,877/- in favour of the 7th respondent for a payment of compensation for the subject land to an extent of Ac. 1.51 cents. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition wherein this Court passed interim order directing that there shall be no disbursement of the amount to any party, but however, the 3rd respondent is free to take appropriate decision on the request made by the petitioners through the legal notice. In view of the interim orders, the bill submitted to pay and accounts officer was returned to the office of the 3rd respondent. Basing on the interim orders, notices were issued to the parties for hearing on 14.03.2016. Both the parties filed their respective documents. The documents showed that the settlement order in case No. 1452, dated 21.04.1976 was issued jointly in favour of the petitioners and 7th respondent in respect of 0.61 hectares in R.S. No.187/4 and 3.06 hectares in R.S. No.158of Dandangi Village of Devipatnam Mandal. Both the parties filed their respective documents. The documents showed that the settlement order in case No. 1452, dated 21.04.1976 was issued jointly in favour of the petitioners and 7th respondent in respect of 0.61 hectares in R.S. No.187/4 and 3.06 hectares in R.S. No.158of Dandangi Village of Devipatnam Mandal. However, pattadar pass-book was issued to the 7th respondent and one Sunkara Lakshmi Mangatayaru in respect of 0.61 hectares in R.S. No.187/4. Thus while settlement patta was issued in favour of all the sisters, however pattadar pass-book was issued in respect of 7th respondent and another person. Hence detailed report was called for from the Sub-Collector, Rampachodavaram through the Tahsildar, Devipatnam and the said report is awaited from the Tahsildar. Finally, the 4th respondent submitted that in view of the interim orders, the compensation was not paid to any of the parties and further orders of the Court will be obeyed. 4. Then the 7th respondent filed counter along with vacate stay petition and opposed the writ petition. Her case is that the subject lands were originally purchased by the grand-father of the petitioners and 7th respondent namely Late Muthyala Tataiah under registered sale deed, dated 04.08.1941 and he was granted ryotwari patta in respect of the subject land. He was also having some other properties in different villages. The parents of the petitioners and 7th respondent pre-deceased their grandfather. The marriages of some of petitioners and 7th respondent were performed by their grand- father and at the time of their marriages they were given different extents of lands towards pasupu-kunkuma and they have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective lands. So far as the 7th respondent is concerned, she was given the land in Sy.No.187/3 and 187/4. Their grandfather effected the partition among the petitioners and 7th respondent by metes and bounds and the lands that were gifted as pasupu-kunkuma were allotted to their respective shares. Subsequently a partition list dated 30.03.1974 showing the respective extents of six sisters was prepared which was signed by the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 7th respondent and guardian of petitioners 4 and 5 herein as they were minors by then. Thus there was a partition among the petitioners and 7th respondent, as per which they have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Thus there was a partition among the petitioners and 7th respondent, as per which they have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The disputed land of 0.61 hectares in Sy.No.187/4 belongs to 7th respondent and it is not a joint property among the petitioners and 7th respondent and contra averment is false and the 7th respondent alone is entitled to compensation in respect of land to an extent of 0.61 hectares in Sy.No.187/4. Therefore the 7th respondent made a representation dated 04.12.2015 to the District Collector with all the relevant details and he called for a report from the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar after verifying the connected records, submitted a detailed report dated 17.12.015 stating that the 7th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land. Subsequently, the petitioner sent legal notice dated 22.04.2015 with all false averments to the acquisition authorities. In fact, the petitioners attended the enquiry before the Tahsildar and they are fully aware of the relevant facts. The petitioner suppressed all the material facts and filed the writ petition which is not maintainable. She thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD for 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning for respondent No. 2, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Sri M.R.K Chakravarthi, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 6. Both the learned counsel have reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. Both the learned counsel have reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. While it is the contention of the petitioner that the disputed land to an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 is a joint property among all the sisters i.e., the petitioners and the 7th respondent which is evident from settlement patta and therefore all of them are entitled to 1/6th share each in the compensation allotted to that extent, in oppugnation, the contention of the 7th respondent is that the said land was gifted by her grand- father at the time of her marriage which is evident from the partition list dated 30.03.1974 and subsequently the 7th respondent obtained pattadar pass-book in respect of the said land and in fact the petitioners also obtained pattadar pass-books in respect of the lands which were given to them as pasupu-kunkuma and the petitioners suppressing these material facts filed the writ petition by falsely claiming a share in the land to a extent of 0.61 hectares in Sy.No.187/4. It is further contended that for suppression of facts the writ petition is not maintainable. On this aspect, he relied upon Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 INSC 1277 : (2010) 2 SCC 114 and Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India 2010 INSC 763 : (2010) 14 SCC 38 . 7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow ? 8. POINT: The admitted facts are that among other lands, the respondents 3 and 4 acquired the land to an extent of Ac.7.56 cents in R.S. No.158 as well as Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4. So far as the land in an extent of Ac.7.56 cents in Sy.No.158 is concerned, all the 6 sisters received compensation and there is no dispute in respect of the said land. So far as an extent of Ac.1.51 cents in Sy.No.187/4 is concerned, while the petitioners claim that it is a joint property among the petitioners and 7th respondent, in oppugnation, the 7th respondent claims that it is her exclusive property, inasmuch as, her grand-father gifted the said land as pasupu-kunkuma at the time of her marriage and the said claim is denied by the petitioners. Needless to emphasize that the rival claims made by both parties present disputed question of facts. Needless to emphasize that the rival claims made by both parties present disputed question of facts. The jurisprudence as propounded in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1998 INSC 400 : 1998 (8) SCC 1 . In this regard, it is observed that when the disputed question of facts are encountered, which can be resolved by an authority as an alternative remedy, it is not apposite for this Court to entertain a writ petition but direct the parties to take recourse before appropriate forum. It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: "14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field." Admittedly, as per Section 64 r/w Section 76 of Act 30 of 2013 the authority has been constituted U/s 51 of the said Act to adjudicate the said dispute. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the respondents 3 to 5 can be directed to refer the matter to appropriate authority constituted under the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 to resolve the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the said Act 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to refer the dispute of the petitioners and the 7th respondent to appropriate authority within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order for adjudication on merits in accordance with the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. No costs. As a sequel interlocutory applications pending if any in this writ petition shall stand closed.