THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2043 of 2008 Dated: 05.02.2008 Between: M. Lakshmi Narsamma … Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Revenue (L.A.), Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Venkata Mayur for Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2043 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in referring the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V. Venkata Mayur representing Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that for acquiring certain lands of the petitioner, a sum of Rs.57,336/- was awarded towards compensation, that the petitioner claims to have received notice dated 16.11.2006 issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 28.11.2006 and that he allegedly made a request to refer his claim for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act on 22.01.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though more than one year has elapsed from the time of receiving the petitioner’s request for reference, respondent No.3 failed to discharge his statutory obligation of referring the petitioner’s claim to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer shall refer the claims of the land owners for determination of the market value of the land within a period of six weeks, if the person making such claim was present before the Collector. In other cases, the Land Acquisition Officer shall refer the matter to the competent civil Court within two months from the date of receipt of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act. If the petitioner’s contention that he received notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 28.11.2006 and that he made a request for reference on 22.01.2007 is correct, the request of the petitioner is well within the time prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. Since the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage without giving any finding on this aspect, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for reference. If it is found that the claim of the petitioner is within the time prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act, he shall refer the dispute to the competent civil Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that if respondent No.3 finds that the application is beyond the time stipulated in Section 18(2) of the Act, no such reference need be made. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.2603 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.02.2008 ES