IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20949 of 2001 Between: 1 Nimmaganti Surya Rao S/o.Pullayya R/o.J.Annavaram Village, E.G.District. 2 Nimmaganti Mangayamma W/o.Pullayya R/o.Kattamuru Village, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep.by Collector, E.G.District. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer&Special Deputy Collector,(L.A.) Yeleru Reservior Project, Unit No.3, Peddapuram, E.G.District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, E.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.M.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. CH.DHANAMJAYA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not referring Award No.1 of 1990, dated 15.02.1990 to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The facts, which are admitted, are that in respect of the lands, in which the petitioners have interest, award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 15.02.1990. One Kondapalli Soorayamma filed O.S.No.10 of 1991 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram for declaration of title in respect of the lands in question. The said suit ended in compromise by decree, dated 23.08.1999 wherein the petitioners and the plaintiff in the suit agreed for apportionment of compensation awarded under Award, dated 15.02.1990. In April 2000, respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioners to receive their share of compensation in terms of the compromise decree. On 21.05.2000, the petitioners requested respondent No.3 to refer the dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Under Section 18 of the Act, a person, who has not accepted the award, is entitled to seek reference of the dispute relating to measurement of land, amount of compensation to the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested, to the competent civil Court, within six (6) weeks from the date of the Collector’s award if the person making such a request was present at the time of passing of the award and within two (2) months from the date of service of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act, in other cases. I n Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani v. Dasari Ramulu, the Full Bench of this Court examined the question as to whether limitation for making an application starts running in cases where notice of award has not been received by the claimant and in paragraph 34(4) it held as under: “The burden of alleging and proving of the service of notice either actually or constructively, is on the state when the State intends to take advantage contending that the application seeking reference under Section 18 is barred by limitation. It is for the State to show the date on which the claimant acquired actually or constructively the knowledge of the award from which the period of limitation would commence.” From the above reproduced paragraph of the judgment, it is clear that the Full Bench has interpreted the words “service of the notice” and held that if the record shows that the claimant had knowledge of the award and its contents, the same shall be treated as constructive notice even in the absence of actual notice having been served. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that prior to April 2000, there was no notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act. But the fact remains that the petitioners agreed for apportionment of the awarded amount by allowing a compromise decree passed on 23.08.1999. Unless the petitioners had knowledge of passing of award and its contents, they would not have agreed for passing of a compromise decree to apportion the compensation amount awarded under the Award. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioners had constructive notice of the award at least on 23.08.1999, when the compromise decree was passed. Admittedly, the petitioners made a request much beyond two (2) months of such notice i.e. on 21.05.2000. Therefore, it has to be held that the application of the petitioners for reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation prescribed under proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.26434 of 2001 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th AUGUST, 2008. kvni