IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1444 of 2002 Between: 1 N.Nagi Reddy, S/o. Poonnappa Reddy, R/o. A.M.Puttur, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 Arani Panduranga Reddy, S/o. Ch. Ellappa Reddy, R/o. B.P.Agraharam, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 P.Ramakrishana Reddy, S/o. Changa Reddy, R/o. B.P.Agraharam, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. 4 Sri Ninappa, S/o. Nellore Subba Rami Reddy, R/o. A.M.Puttur, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. .. PETITIONERS AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Sri Kalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioners:MR.P.GANGARAMI REDDY Counsel for the respondent: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in rejecting the claims of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) vide his proceedings dated 19-10-2001 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondent to refer their applications to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by petitioner No.1, he averred that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for formation of a bypass road; that award No.1/94 dated 31-05-1994 was passed and that the compensation amount was received under protest on 23-06-1994 with a request to the respondent to refer their claim to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. It is further stated that when no action on the said request was taken, petitioner No.1 and one Sri T.Venkatamuni Reddy filed W.P. No.14488 of 2001, which was disposed of by this Court on 02- 08-2001, and that thereafter, the application of Sri T.Venkatamuni Reddy was referred to the Civil Court and petitioner No.1’s request was rejected on the ground that he received compensation without protest. No counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the respondent. However, at the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that petitioner No.1 alone ﬁled application for reference on 23-06-1994, but the other petitioners have not ﬁled any such applications. She produced the record, which contains the application of petitioner No.1 alone. I have carefully perused the record. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners ﬁled a copy of legal notice dated 23-06-1994 issued to the respondent, which does not contain the name of the person on whose behalf the said legal notice was issued. However, the reply issued by the respondent on 19-10-2001 shows that the legal notice was issued on behalf of petitioner No.1. With reference to the said legal notice, the respondent stated that in the case of Sri T.Venkatamuni Reddy, his request was referred to the Civil Court as he received the compensation under protest, whereas petitioner No.1 has not registered his protest while receiving the compensation. The petitioners failed to produce any material to show that applications on behalf of petitioners 2 to 4 were made as in the case of petitioner No.1. Added to this, the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader shows that it does not contain any applications from petitioners 2 to 4. In the absence of any material ﬁled by petitioners 2 to 4, their claim that they made applications for reference cannot be accepted. With regard to petitioner No.1, admittedly he made his application for reference on 23-06-1994, which is within the time stipulated under Section 18 of the Act. The only ground on which his request was rejected was that while receiving the compensation, he did not register protest. This issue is no longer res integra in view of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in District Collector, Kakinada v. P.Nagabhushana Rao[1], in which it is authoritatively held that mere failure to register formal protest does not preclude the land owner from making an application for reference and that making application itself within the time constitutes protest. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed only to the extent of petitioner No.1. The respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th September, 2008 vrn [1] AIR 2004 AP 1 (FB)