IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22839 of 2002 Between: Arikalla Mondaiah & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Warangal District at Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal Town & Dist., & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri B. Narayana Reddy Sri K. Chidambaram Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22839 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not referring the petitioners’ application for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. In their affidavit, the petitioners stated that an extent of Ac.5.31 guntas in Sy.No.272 etc., of Parlapalli Village, Mogullapalli Mandal, Warangal District, was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Distributory Main Channel at DBM.16/IR/IOR of Kakatiya Canal, Sriram Sagar Project (SRSP), that the Land Acquisition Officer passed award fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre and the petitioners received compensation on 20.04.1991 under protest. It is further stated that having not been satisfied with the amount of compensation, the petitioners filed petitions under Section 18 of the Act with a request to refer the same to the competent civil Court for fixation of proper market value, that in spite of persistent oral and written applications, the respondents have not referred the matters and that therefore they caused legal notices dated 10.07.2002 issued to respondent No.2 to refer the dispute to the civil Court within a period of 15 days. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite receiving the said notice, respondent No.2 has not referred the dispute. No counter affidavit is filed. From a perusal of the record and the abovementioned averments of the affidavit, it is evident that the petitioners have not mentioned the date on which the award was passed. They, however, admitted that they have received the compensation amount on 20.04.1991. Under proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, if the land owners are not present at the time of passing of the award, they are entitled to seek reference of dispute to a competent Civil Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act. Though no specific plea is raised as to whether notice of award was issued to the petitioners or not, the admitted fact is that they have received the amount under award under protest on 20.04.1991. Therefore, the petitioners are deemed to have had constructive notice of the award as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani vs. Dasari Ramulu and others. Though the petitioners contended that they made several requests both written and oral, they have not mentioned the dates on which the requests are made much less they have produced any evidence in support of such a plea. The petitioners merely filed a copy of legal notice dated 10.07.2002 said to have been issued to respondent No.2. Since more than 11 years elapsed from the date of receipt of the compensation amounts by the date of issuance of legal notice and in the absence of any material to show that they sent requests for reference of dispute within the time stipulated by the abovementioned provision, the claim of the petitioners for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act is woefully barred by limitation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.08.2008 ES