THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26140 of 2011 Dated 30th November, 2011 Between: Tulva Krishna and others …Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, at Goshamahal, Malakunta, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners filed this writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not referring the dispute raised by them for payment of enhanced compensation to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). The lands of the petitioners were acquired for establishment of a Regional Training Centre of National Security Guards. A common award was passed on 31.07.2010. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have not received award notice, though they have received compensation on 31.12.2010. They have filed applications for reference of dispute on 24.01.2011. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Land Acquisition has not disputed these facts. In the absence of an award notice, the date of receipt of compensation shall be reckoned as the point of commencement of limitation. So reckoned, as the applications filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are within the period of limitation stipulated under Section 18(2) of the Act, they are entitled to reference of their dispute to the civil Court. With regard to petitioner No.3, there is a slight controversy. It is the case of petitioner No.3 that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to her on 07.12.2010 and on 08.12.2010, she has made an application for reference of the dispute. A copy of the said notice is filed by her in the writ petition, a perusal of which, would show that the notice originally contained the printed date i.e., 01.08.2010. The date and month were found struck off with pen and the date “07.12” is written above the struck off printed date and month. According to petitioner No.3, notice which was initially prepared in the name of Marepalli Narayana, S/o Venkaiah, was subsequently changed by showing her name and compensation was paid on 07.12.2010, the date on which, the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was also served on her. No counter affidavit is filed controverting the pleas of the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, produced the record, which contains original notice. The original notice does not contain corrections and it bears 01.08.2010 as the date of notice. While it is difficult to come to the definite conclusion as to whether the correction of the date on the copies served on petitioner No.3 is effected by the authorised person or not, however, if probabilities are weighed, benefit of doubt goes in favour of petitioner No.3 because on the same day, i.e., 07.12.2010, compensation was also paid to petitioner No.3. This fact would necessarily give rise to a reasonable presumption that even though a notice was prepared on 01.08.2010, the date immediately following the date of passing of the award, the same was served only on 07.12.2010 and compensation was also paid on the same day. If 07.12.2010 is reckoned as the date on which notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served, it requires to be held that the application of petitioner No.3 filed on 08.12.2010 is within the period of limitation. On the above analysis, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to refer the claims of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32253 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th November, 2011 VGB