IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20567 of 2003 Between: Chakiri Chandra Rao and ten others. … Petitioners And Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Srinivas Karra Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in referring the dispute under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary. In their aﬃdavit the petitioners averred that various extents of lands belonged to them were acquired under the provisions of the Act and Award was passed on 12-3-1976. They have pleaded that as no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was given to them, they had been making repeated representations to the respondents to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the competent Civil Court. They further pleaded that as their representations went unheeded, at long last they caused legal notice dated 28-8-2003 issued and as there was no response even to the said legal notice, they filed the present Writ Petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 the fact of acquisition of the petitioners’ lands has been admitted. It is also stated that Award was passed on 12-3-1976 and compensation was paid to all the owners of the lands, including the petitioners, and that they received the compensation without protest. He denied the petitioners’ making any application under Section 18 of the Act for reference of the dispute and also the plea that Award notices were not issued. It is further averred that the Writ Petition ﬁled more than 20 years after passing of the Award and six years after sending of representation dated 20-12-1979 suﬀers from laches and is liable to be dismissed. In the reply aﬃdavit, the petitioners reiterated their contention that Award notices under Section 12(2) were not served. Under proviso (b) to sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, if a person is not present at the time of passing of the Award, he is entitled to seek reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. The petitioners pleaded that no notice was received by them under Section 12(2) of the Act. They, however, stated that they made repeated representations to the respondents to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners have not mentioned the dates on which such notices were issued. The very averment of the petitioners that they made representations to the respondents for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act itself is suggestive of the fact that they were aware of the Award and not satisﬁed with the quantum of compensation ﬁxed. The petitioners ﬁled a copy of representation dated 20-12-1997, which is the earliest one, to show that they made a request for reference. As nearly twenty one years have elapsed from the time of passing the award by then, the petitioners are not entitled to seek reference in the absence of any evidence to show that within two months from the date of knowledge of the Award they have made an application for reference. As rightly pointed out by respondent No.2 in his counter-aﬃdavit, even after making of the said representation in 1997, they kept quiet for more than ﬁve years in approaching this Court. In almost a similar case, this Court by detailed order dated 2-7-2008 passed in Writ Petition No.3503 of 2005 rejected a similar plea and dismissed the Writ Petition. For the above-mentioned reasons and also the reasons contained in the said order, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ----------------------- ----------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:12-08-2008 MNR