THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2734 of 2011 ORDER: The lands of the petitioners are acquired for Summer Storage Tank through notification dated 21.03.2006 published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Award was passed on 18.01.2007 while it was pronounced or given effect to from 06.09.2007 after making certain corrections. The petitioners herein submitted representations to refer the matter to the Civil Court since they were not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer i.e. the third respondent referred the matter to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Piler. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler returned the O.P. on as many as five occasions. Each time the third respondent or his subordinate, the Tahsildar, represented the matter by offering a detailed explanation and ultimately through endorsement dated 11.06.2010, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler returned the reference on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 18(2)(a) of the Act. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It appears that the Court of Senior Civil Judge was resorting to return the matter on one pretext or other. This is one of the rare cases where the Land Acquisition Officer had ensured that unnecessary litigation under Section 30 of the Act is avoided and made payment to the owners of the land according to their respective shares. He has promptly acceded to the request of the land owners for making reference under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 (a) and (b) prescribe the limitation within which the owner of an acquired property can seek reference. Once the Land Acquisition Officer is satisfied that the application for reference is made within time, the Civil Court does not have any role to play in the matter. It is rather unfortunate that the Civil Court which is expected to protect the interest of the claimants has become stumbling block and returned the matter on as many as five occasions. The ground mentioned in the returned O.P. is totally without basis. The Writ Petition is allowed and the endorsements of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler are set aside. The record discloses that the reference is pending consideration from 18.01.2007. If the Court does not number the O.P. within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the officer shall owe an explanation to the Registry. The Presiding Officer as well as ministerial staff, who are making such baseless, irrelevant and frivolous return of O.P., shall be held personally liable. The O.P. shall be disposed of on merits within a period of one year from today. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date.09.02.2011 Note:1) Registry to mark a copy of this order to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Piler. 2) CC in three days. Bo usd