THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 2668 OF 2009 Dt: 1-03-2011 Between: Pusapati Simhadri Raju …..Petitioner And The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (LA), VUDA, Visakhapatnam. …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2668 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was the owner of Ac.1-95 cents of land in Sy.No.30/2 of Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam. Along with the various other extents in the locality, the land of the petitioner was acquired by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority in the year 1986 for providing house sites. An Award was passed on 4.6.1986 fixing the compensation for the land of the petitioner at Rs.7.50 Ps. per square yard. The petitioner received the compensation on 11.6.1986 under protest and requested that the matter be referred to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). His grievance is that the respondent has not taken steps thereof. He contends that though he made repeated requests, the respondent did not act upon. The petitioner contends that he filed a writ petition earlier and this Court passed orders directing the respondent therein that if he has received applications within the stipulated time under Section 18 of the Act, he shall refer the matter to the Civil Court. The respondent filed counter affidavit. The fact that the land of the petitioner was acquired is not disputed. According to him, the petitioner did not refer his claim in time. He stated that the writ petitions filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion, was disposed of at the admission stage, directing that the reference be made in case application was filed in accordance with law and no such application is found in the file. He also stated that the writ petitioner is one of the awardees who received compensation of Rs.1,12,865/- for an extent of Ac.1-95 cents covered by Sy.No.30/2B of Kurmannapalem Village of Gajuwaka Mandal in person under protest. Heard Sri Ramachandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V.Preeti Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent. An extent of Ac.1-95 cents of land in Sy.No.30/2 of Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam owned by the petitioner along with the land of others was acquired by the respondent for the purpose of providing house sites. An Award was passed on 4.6.1986. The petitioner states that he received compensation on 11.6.1986 under protest and made a request seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. Since the respondent did not take any steps, he filed W.P.No.4223 of 1991 and that the writ petition, along with similar writ petitions, was disposed of on 22.3.1991 directing that if the respondent has received applications for enhancement of compensation within the stipulated time under Section 18 of the Act, expeditious steps should take for reference of the matter. In many other cases, reference was made and the same were taken up as O.P.Nos.774, 775 and 776 of 1996. No reference was made in respect of the land of the petitioner. The petitioner enclosed the copy of a letter addressed by him through which he recorded his protest and made a request to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. In his counter affidavit, the respondent did not dispute the fact that the petitioner received the compensation under protest. The relevant sentence in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that he received compensation under protest and that he made a request to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act through a written representation, remains unrebutted. At another place in the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that the direction issued by this Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier, could not be complied since no reference is pending as per the records available. The respondent should have asked the petitioner to place necessary material, if the representation is not available in their records. Inaction on the part of the respondent is evident from the fact that even where applications or representations are made within time, he did not take steps till this Court directed him through a common order passed in various applications including the one filed by the petitioner. The references were made to Civil Courts in respect of the lands covered by the same notification. In fact, the petitioner could not have availed the benefit under Section 28-A of the Act, if otherwise permissible in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to refer the matter in relation to the award dated 4.6.1986 passed by him for the land of Ac.1-95 cents of land in Sy.No.30/2 of Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam acquired by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, within a period of two months from the date of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dt: 01.03.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 2668 OF 2009 DATE: 01.03.2011