IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17033 of 2004 Between: 1 Mallu Nageswar Reddy S/o.Akkireddy R/o.Parnapalli Village Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 Veepanagandla Venkataiah S/o.Bangaranna R/o.Parnapalli Village Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 N.Laxmidevamma W/o.Thippareddy R/o.Parnapalli Village Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 N.V.Subbareddy S/o.Late Balreddy R/o.Parnapalli Village Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 5 N.V.Sivareddy S/o. late Balreddy R/o.Parnapalli Village Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector (L.A.) Kurnool District, Kurnool. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Bandi Atmakur, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the applications for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in his Proceedings RCA.122/85 dated 16.8.2004 in respect of Land Ac 5.70 cents in Sy.Nos. 30/1, 30/3 and 30/5 situated in Parnapalli Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District belonging to the petitioners as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refer the matter under Sec.18 of the L.A. Act to the Sub Court, Nandyal for redetermination of the compensation in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY (not present) Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17033 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the applications of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), vide proceedings dated 16.08.2004 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.70 cents in Survey Nos.30/1, 30/3 and 30/5 of Parnapalli village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, as illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioners prayed for a consequential direction to respondents to refer the dispute to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. 2. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners averred that, the respondents issued notiﬁcation dated 14.11.1978 for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.5-72 cents in Survey Nos.30/1, 30/3 and 30/5 of Parnapalli village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, for the purpose of provision of house sites to the weaker sections, for which Award bearing No.4/80-81, dated 15.11.1980, was passed determining the compensation at Rs.8,300/- per acre, and the possession of the lands was taken on 30.11.1980. While so, the petitioners, along with others, filed W.P.No.6895 of 1993 questioning the acquisition proceedings. This Court, on 20.06.2001, dismissed the said writ petition, but however, it directed the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners and also the petitioners were given liberty to approach the respondents for payment of the compensation. Pursuant thereto, on 24.04.2002, the petitioners received compensation amount under protest and ﬁled their applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said applications, which were evidently ﬁled before the Deputy Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, who is not the competent authority, were forwarded to the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The learned Senior Civil Judge returned the references on the ground that there was a delay of 24 years in referring the claims for enhancement. Subsequently, on the applications ﬁled by the petitioners for reference, respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement whereby he rejected the said applications, as they were not ﬁled within the prescribed time limit under the Act. 3. The facts stated above would clearly reveal that though the award was passed as far as back the year 1980, the petitioners have not approached the respondents for reference of dispute. 13 years after the passing of the award, the petitioners ﬁled a writ petition questioning the initiation of the acquisition proceedings, and almost 22 years after the passing of the award, they made applications for reference, which according to the respondents were forwarded to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, by mistake. Under proviso (b) of Section 18 (2) of the Act, where the land owners were not present before the Collector at the time of passing of the award, they shall make their claims within two months from the date or service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 sub- section (2) of the Act, for reference to the Civil Court. 4. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is averred that notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on all the awardees, that while petitioner No.3 was not available in the village, petitioners 1 and 2 and father of petitioners 4 and 5 refused to receive the notices and that as the land owners have not turned up to receive the compensation, the amount was kept in Revenue deposits. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani v. Dasari Ramulu and others[1] held that the period of limitation starts running from the date of service of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act or knowledge of passing of an award by the land owners. It also held that knowledge may be either in pursuance of written notice or the same may be constructive inferred from the facts of each case. 6. In the instant case, it is speciﬁcally pleaded that on 13.12.1980 itself, notices were sent to the petitioners and that, while petitioner No.3 was not available in the village, other petitioners refused to receive the same. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioners had constructive knowledge of the passing of the award in the year 1980 itself. Having kept quiet for more than 22 years, the petitioners made their applications, which evidently were forwarded by the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer to the Civil Court by mistake. 7. In my considered view, the claims of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Act is absolutely stale and rejection of such stale claims by respondent No.2 does not suffer from any illegality. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 25.08.2008 v v [1] 2000 (2) ALD 418