THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.9441 of 2007 Dated 30th June, 2011 Between: P.Venkatappa …Petitioner And District Collector, Anantapur District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Hanumanth Reddy Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to refer the dispute relating to fixation of compensation in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.47 cents comprised in Survey No.232-3B belonging to the petitioner and acquired vide notification, dated 18.04.2000, to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The above-noted land of the petitioner was acquired under the provisions of the Act and an award was passed on 05.01.2001 fixing compensation. As there was a dispute pertaining to apportionment of compensation, the same was referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that on 06.02.2001, he has sent protest letter to respondent No.2 relating to quantum of compensation fixed under the award. Subsequently, the petitioner caused legal notice, dated 13.12.2001, issued to respondent No.2. In response thereto, respondent No.2 issued endorsement in L.Dis.No.2047/2001/B, dated 15.01.2002, to the effect that as the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act are pending before the competent civil Court, the question of reference under Section 18 of the Act does not arise. After disposal of proceedings under Section 30 of the Act in O.P.No.33 of 2001 on 03.07.2003, the petitioner appeared to have addressed letter, dated 11.10.2003, seeking reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. By proceedings in Rc.No.418/2004/SDT, dated 25.03.2004, respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner that the latter has received the compensation amount without protest and that he has not protested on the quantum of compensation at any point of time. On this reasoning, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioner’s request for reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the above facts were reiterated. The sum and substance of this counter affidavit is that within the prescribed time, the petitioner has not submitted any representation either registering his protest or making a request for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. At the hearing, Sri A.Hanumanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has filed a copy of the purported protest letter, dated 06.02.2001, with a seal and initial of office of respondent No.2. He further submitted that if the petitioner’s representation registering protest was not received, respondent No.2 would have taken that stand in his earlier endorsement, dated 15.01.2002, and that having not taken such objection at the relevant point of time, he cannot be permitted to raise this objection at a later point of time. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Yerraguntla v. Kamalagangi Reddy and others[1] in support of his submission that mere protest without specific reference to requirements of Section 18 of the Act is sufficient. Opposing the above contentions, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents submitted that even though in the initial endorsement, dated 15.01.2002, respondent No.2 has not taken the objection of the petitioner’s failure to file required application within the prescribed time, the fact remains that respondent No.2 has not received the purported protest letter, dated 06.02.2001. The learned Government Pleader further stated that the judgment in The Special Tahsildar (supra) runs contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. The State of Maharastra[2]. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. There is a serious dispute regarding the claim of the petitioner that he has submitted a protest letter on 06.02.2001 to respondent No.2. No doubt, a photocopy of the petitioner’s purported protest petition is filed along with the writ petition. The petitioner has failed to file the original copy on which he has obtained acknowledgement for receipt of the said protest letter. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon this disputed question of fact. However, by examination of the probabilities of the claim of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to establish his case to the satisfaction of this Court that he has filed a protest letter. As noted above, he has not filed the original copy of the protest letter, on which, the seal of respondent No.2 has been purportedly placed. Moreover in the legal notice, which appeared to have been dated 13.12.2001, neither the date nor the time on which the protest petition was filed was mentioned. Had a protest letter been given on 06.02.2001, I would see no reason why this date has not been mentioned in the legal notice. No doubt, initial endorsement, dated 15.01.2002, has proceeded on a wholly erroneous premise that no reference under Section 18 of the Act when a dispute under Section 30 of the Act is pending could be made and it failed to advert to the basic objection of the petitioner’s failure to file the protest petition within the prescribed time. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by mere failure of respondent No.2 to raise the said objection in the said endorsement, the petitioner’s case that he has filed the protest letter within time should be accepted. As the initial burden heavily lies on the petitioner to show that he has filed an appropriate application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, he is not entitled to the grant of relief. Even though this Court has strong reservation on the view taken by the learned Single Judge in The Special Tahsildar (1 supra) in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Hasnuddin (2 supra), it is not necessary for this Court to pronounce upon the same having regard to the finding that the petitioner failed to prove that he has sent the purported protest letter, dated 06.02.2001, to respondent No.2. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.12030 of 2007 and 23693 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th June, 2011 VGB [1] AIR 1990 AP 124 [2] AIR 1979 SC 404