THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.4815 of 2006 Date: 22-12-2009 Between: S. Harinatha Rao and another … Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.4815 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for determining the compensation payable to the petitioners for acquiring the land in Survey Nos.231/3 and 231/5A situated at Kothavalasa, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 1st petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 42 cents and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 41 cents in Survey Nos.231/3 and 231/5A, situated at Parvathipuram Municipality. It is submitted that the State Government had acquired their lands for distribution to those displaced persons under Thotapally Barage Project for their rehabilitation, though the Government lands were available. The 1st respondent, Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, sent notice intimating the petitioners that they had assessed the compensation at Rs.2,16,600/- and demanded them to receive the same by appearing before him on 31.10.2005. Thereafter, on 13.10.2005 the petitioners represented to the 1st respondent protesting about the determination of the compensation unilaterally and brought to his notice that the Sub-Registrar’s valuation for the lands situated in Survey Nos.231, 232 and 237 is Rs.54,69,200/- per acre and copy of the same was enclosed with their representation and requested them to determine the compensation as per the said valuation. Further, it is submitted that the 1st respondent again sent another notice reiterating to receive the determined compensation and the petitioners in response to the said notice replied not to compel them to receive the determined compensation, which is not just and proper, and requested to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the Senior Civil Judge at Parvathipuram, but so far, the matter is not referred to the Court. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, counter has been filed stating that an extent of Ac.1.05 cents of the Wet land in Survey Nos.231/3, 4 and 5 of Kothavalasa Village in Parvathipuram Mandal has been proposed for acquisition for taking up rehabilitation of displaced families under Thotapalli Barrage Scheme. The District Collector, Vizianagaram has approved the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and published the same. No representation from any one on any aspect has been received by the respondents. Based on the basic values of the lands under Acquisition and the sale transactions took place during the crucial period proposal dated 20.05.2005 has been submitted to the District Collector for fixation of preliminary valuation of the lands under acquisition. The District Collector vide his proceedings dated 14.06.2005 has communicated orders fixing the market value at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre of Wet land under acquisition. Accordingly, notices under Section 9(1) of the Act have been served on the land owners directing them to appear before the 1st respondent on 02.08.2005 and 03.08.2005. In response to the said notices, the land owners have attended on 03.08.2005 and deposed that they are not willing for the rate fixed and requested to fix rate at the rate of Rs.400/- per square yard, failing which they will approach the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, the matter was referred to the District Level Negotiation Committee. On 05.10.2005 the District Level Negotiation Committee discussed with the land owners on the rate. After prolonged discussions, the Committee has requested to accept rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre as package deal whereas the land owners requested for Rs.4,50,000/- per acre. As the land owners did not accept the rate offered by the District Level negotiation Committee under package deal, the Committee ordered the 1st respondent to pass award under Section 11(1) of the Act. Accordingly, passed the award and the Collector has counter signed the same on 05.10.2005. Thereafter, again the respondent authorities have sent notices to the petitioners to appear before the officers concerned to receive the compensation awarded. The petitioners instead of attending before the respondent authorities sent letters stating that the compensation awarded is not acceptable to them and hence requested to refer the matter to the Civil Court, under Section 18 of the Act. Finally, explaining the rule position, another opportunity was afforded to the land owners directing them to attend before the 1st respondent to receive compensation. Even for this, the land owners did not attend and sent a letter on 08.12.2005 requesting to refer the matter to the Civil Court. Despite several efforts, the land owners did not respond positively to receive the compensation awarded. Hence, the amount is kept in Revenue Deposits vide Cheque No.7196 dated 07.12.2005. At that stage, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before this Court. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the land acquired by the respondents. The market value of the land fixed by the respondents is not acceptable to the petitioners. Therefore, they requested the 1st respondent to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. Instead of referring the matter, the respondents went on issuing endorsements asking the petitioners to come and receive the compensation fixed by them, which is contrary to law. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as and when the land owners were asked to appear before the 1st respondent, the petitioners have failed to appear before the officers concerned and they went on seeking to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. For the above circumstances, it is necessary to extract Section 18 of the Act as under: “Reference to Court:-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. Provided that every such application shall be made:- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.” From the above, it is obvious that the land owners having a right, requested the authorities to make reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded in respect of the lands acquired by the Government. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners’ land was acquired vide notification dated 12.01.2005 and award was passed on 05.10.2005. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, the petitioners have sent letters, last representation dated 08.12.2005, immediately to the respondents requesting that the matter may be referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioners have made a representation dated 08.12.2005, pursuant to the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, within time, and the same has not been disposed of by the respondents. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that non consideration of the request of the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.12.2005 of the petitioners and pass orders, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22.12.2009 LSK