THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6456 OF 2010 Dated: 24.10.2011 Between: S. Padma Reddy and another. .. Petitioners And The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition, Unit-5), HUDA Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6456 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the owners of Ac.10-16 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.541 of Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District. It is stated that the said land was purchased by the father of the 1st petitioner by name S. Srinivasa Reddy under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 27.01.1966 and the petitioners herein acquired title by succession. By Notification, dated 16.04.2005 published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the said land was acquired for the purpose of Outer Ring Road Phase-II and the compensation payable was determined by Award dated 9.5.2008. The notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.5.2008 informing that a sum of Rs.96,62,030/- was awarded in favour of the 1st petitioner’s father towards compensation for 11,641 sq. yards of acquired land, however the matter had been referred to the Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of title dispute. It is stated that the 1st petitioner addressed several letters to the respondent stating that there is no dispute with regard to his title in respect of 9,104 sq. yards which is in his possession and requesting to pay the compensation to him in respect of the said 9,104 sq. yards of land. In spite of the same, as no compensation was paid, the 1st petitioner got issued legal notice dated 14.12.2009 stating that compensation amount was wrongly withheld and that even the notice dated 10.5.2008 did not disclose the particulars of the alleged dispute of title and thus calling upon the respondent to pay the compensation together with interest and solatium forthwith. Though the said notice was received, there was no response from the respondent. Hence the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in not paying the compensation to the petitioner in respect of the acquired land to the extent of 9,104 sq. yards is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that under the notification dated 16.4.2005 a total extent of 16,169 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.541 was acquired. Out of the said land 4,528 sq. yards was acquired with consent. So far as the remaining extent of 11,641 sq. yards which was found to have been divided into 45 plots is concerned, none appeared and no documents were filed for verification of title. Hence by Award dated 9.5.2008, the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently on 25.11.2008 the petitioner No.1 gave consent to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. yard together with additional benefits of 30% solatium and 12% additional market value after deducting 11.33% income-tax to an extent of 9,456 sq. yards. He also made an application dated 3.8.2009 beyond the statutory period seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is further stated that the petitioner No.1 is a developer and that 9,456 sq. yards of land claimed by him was divided into 37 plots. Out of the said plots, in respect of Plot No.64 one V. Shravan Kumar made a claim for compensation on the basis of the documents to show that he purchased the said plot from the petitioner No.1. Since the 1st petitioner also claimed compensation in respect of the said plot No.64 and as there is possibility of similar sale transactions in respect of other plots, the matter was referred to Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31. In the additional counter-affidavit dated 8.4.2011, it is further explained that though the award was passed on 9.5.2008, the matter was not referred to the Civil Court immediately thereafter. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the award dated 9.5.2008 the matter was referred to the District Court, Rangareddy by proceedings dated 5.10.2011 and the compensation amount was deposited in the Court by way of Cheque, dated 3.10.2011. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the acquired land admeasuring 16,169 sq. yards which stood in the name of the 1st petitioner’s father by name Srinivasa Reddy was made into 61 plots as per the Gram Panchayat Layout in the year 1979. By the date of Section 4 (1) notification most of the plots were sold and during the award enquiry, 16 plot-holders covered by 4,528 sq. yards gave their consent to receive compensation as per the package announced by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006. Accordingly, they were given compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer through Look Adalat. However none appeared claiming title in respect of the remaining 11,641 sq. yards covered by 45 plots. Hence the Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 9.5.2008 referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 12 (2) notice dated 10.5.2008 was served on the petitioners i.e., the legal heirs of the pattadar. Admittedly the claim of the petitioners herein is in respect of 9,104 sq. yards out of the land acquired. Even according to the petitioners, the acquired land was made into plots as per the approved layout and some of the plots were sold under Registered Sale Deeds and the remaining unsold plots to an extent of 9,104 sq. yards are in the possession of the 1st petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were aware of the acquisition proceedings and that the notice dated 10.05.2008 issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on the petitioners. In the said notice itself, it was made clear that the matter was referred to Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication. However, without challenging the action of the respondent in referring the matter to the Civil Court, the 1st petitioner made a representation dated 7.11.2008 bringing to the notice of the respondent that he is in possession of 35 unsold plots and expressing his willingness for payment of compensation under G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006. In fact G.O.Ms.No.14 provides for compensation to the registered plot- holders on the date of notification. Therefore some of the persons who purchased plots from the 1st petitioner appear to have given their consent and received compensation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006. According to the respondent, the petitioner No.1 is not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006 since he is only a developer and not a plot-holder. The respondent has also disbelieved the plea of the petitioner that he is still in possession of some of the plots which remained unsold. Hence the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner could not produce any material before the Land Acquisition Officer during the award enquiry to show that some of the plots remained unsold and that he holds title to the same, the action of the Land Acquisition Officer in referring the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon BHAGWAN DAS v. STATE OF U.P.[1] further contended that since the copy of the award was not served on the petitioners and thus they had no knowledge of the basis on which the compensation was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent ought to have accepted the 1st petitioner’s application dated 3.8.2009 and referred the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As noticed above, the Award was passed on 9.5.2008 and the notice issued under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was admittedly served on the petitioners on 10.5.2008. As per the proviso to Section 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, as applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh, if the person seeking reference was not present before the Collector at the time when the award was made, the application for reference shall be made within two months from the date or service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 (2) of the Act. While interpreting the proviso to Section 18 in BHAGWAN DAS’ case (1 supra) the Supreme Court explained the legal position as under: “The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation of the proviso to section 18 of the Act : (i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself. (ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12(2). (iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award. (iv) If a person interested receives a notice under section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award. A person who fails to make an application for reference within the time prescribed is not without remedy. It is open to him to make an application under section 28A of the Act, on the basis of an award of the court in respect of the other lands covered by the same acquisition notification, if there is an increase. Be that as it may.” Having regard to the admitted fact that Section 12 (2) notice was served on the petitioners on 10.5.2008, clause (b) of the proviso to Section 18 (2) is attracted. Hence it is necessary for the petitioners to make the application for reference within two months from the date of service of Section 12 (2) notice failing which as observed by the Supreme Court in BHAGAWAN DAS’ case (1 supra) the remedy open to the petitioners is to make an application under Section 28-A of the Act in case there is an increase in the compensation in respect of the lands covered by the same acquisition notification. Thus it is a case where the application for reference under Section 18 was made beyond the time prescribed and therefore the respondent cannot be held to have committed an error in not making the reference under Section 18 of the Act. Similarly the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to receive compensation as per G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006 is also untenable. It is true that the 1st petitioner was called upon by notice dated 24.11.2008 to submit the documents specified therein to consider his entitlement for compensation under the package announced by the Government. However the package so announced under G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, is applicable only to the registered plot-holders as on the date of the notification. According to the respondent, benefit under G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006, cannot be extended to the petitioner since he is a developer but not a plot-holder. Having regard to the undisputed fact that the claim of the petitioners is in respect of unsold plots and even according to the petitioners that the land was made into plots by the 1st petitioner as per the approved layout, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the package under G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 18.12.2006. For the aforesaid reasons, though the relief as prayed for cannot be granted, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the Reference Court to conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.10.2011 gbs [1] AIR 2010 SC 1532