THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29256 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not referring the land acquisition proceedings award No.B/1037/2007 dated 31.05.2011 to the competent Court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {“the Act” for brevity}, for determination of the correct market value of the acquired land, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are as under. The petitioner is the absolute owner of a Function Hall bearing Dr.No.10-2-510/C, TS.No.12/2, Ward No.23, Block-‘I’, Gudimalkapur Village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad District. The total extent of the premises is 640 square yards, out of which an extent of 140.88 square yards was notified under Section 4 (1) of the Act, by the officials of the respondent on 08.01.2008. Draft notification under Section 6 of the Act was approved by the District Collector on 17.01.2008. In the absence of the petitioner, the land acquisition proceedings were conducted without service of notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act and no opportunity was given to submit objections and no notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served. On 11.02.2008, the petitioner filed her objections stating that the prevailing market value was from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per square yard, whereas, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.8,000/- per square yard, which is highly objectionable, illegal and arbitrary. Thereafter, an award has been passed on 26.12.2008 without serving notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and an amount of Rs.16,17,592/- was awarded after deducting I.T. @ 10.2% i.e., Rs.1,81,009/-. Rs.24,000/- was awarded for structure value. The said award is wholly unjustified and baseless. The Land Acquisition Officer wrongly came to the conclusion about the prevailing market value of the land, despite strong protest made by the petitioner and her family members and till 18.07.2011, no action was taken on which date the said award was served on the petitioner. A cheque bearing No.728580 for Rs.15,935,92/- dated 07.06.2011 and another cheque bearing No.9276830 for Rs.24,000/- dated 01.07.2011 along with the award copy were sent through the Revenue Inspector namely Sriramulu working in the respondent’s office on 18.07.2011. The petitioner received the cheques “under protest” and requested the said officer that the matter may be referred to the competent Court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Act, as the awarded amount is very less comparative to the prevailing market value. She also addressed a letter on 11.08.2011 requesting to refer the matter for adjudication under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the correct market value of the acquired land. Part 3 of the Act deals with reference to the Court and procedure thereon. Section 18 of the Act under the said part says that “any person interested who has not accepted the award, by written application to the Collector requests the matter to be referred for determination of the Court with regard to measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable for the apportionment of the compensation among the person interested.” Sub-Section 2 of the said Section contemplates six weeks time from the date of the Collector’s Award. On 18.07.2011, the petitioner was served with the award along with two cheques dated 07.06.2011 and 01.07.2011. The said cheques were received “under protest”. Within four weeks i.e., on 11.08.2011, the petitioner addressed a letter requesting that the matter be referred for adjudication under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the correct market value of the acquired land. As there is no action taken, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the land of the petitioner was acquired but the value of the land was fixed far less than the prevailing market value and therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Act to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court for determination of proper and appropriate market value and the respondents have not taken any action on the representation of the petitioner. 4. When the petitioner is aggrieved by fixing of the market value of the site acquired, she has got every right to seek reference of the matter to the competent Civil Court. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, if the petitioner fulfils the conditions laid down under the Act. No costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 16th November 2011 RRB