The petitioner, Laxmi Narasamma, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Telangana High Court, challenging the failure of the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) to deposit or pay the compensation awarded under Award No. A/389/2004 for acquisition of 229.68 square yards of her property for road widening at Seethaphalamandi, Secunderabad. The LAO had referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, solely on the ground that the registered sale deed produced by the petitioner was not legible, despite there being no rival claim or dispute as to apportionment of compensation. The High Court held that the inability to decipher a document does not constitute a 'dispute' within the meaning of Section 30, and that the LAO should have instead called upon the petitioner to produce a legible or certified copy; accordingly, the reference to the Civil Court was set aside as unsustainable. On the petitioner's additional claim for enhanced compensation (from Rs.5,380/- to Rs.18,000/- per square yard as awarded by the Reference Court for adjacent properties), the Court noted that such a claim is governed by Section 28-A of the Act of 1894, which prescribes a strict three-month limitation period from the date of the Reference Court's award, and that this period cannot be disregarded even given the beneficial nature of the provision.