*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +W.P.No.18962 of 2010 % 3-11-2011 # D.R. Krishna Reddy and another … Petitioners and $ Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Hyderabad and others … Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioners : Sri T.C.D. Sekhar for Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy ^ Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition ?CASES REFERRED : Nil HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.18962 of 2010 Date : 3-11-2011 Between: D.R. Krishna Reddy and another … Petitioners and Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri T.C.D. Sekhar for Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in referring the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") for the lands admeasuring Ac.0-62 cents in Sy.No.263/2E and Ac.0-41 cents in Sy.No.264/3B belonging to petitioner No.1 and Ac.1-36 cents in Sy.No.264/3B belonging to petitioner No.2, situated in SRN Agraharam village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District and acquired under award No.15/2001-2002(SW), dated 12-11- 2001, as illegal and arbitrary. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though their lands were acquired and award was passed on 12-11- 2001, their claim for enhancement has not been referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioners have stated that they have received the compensation amounts under the award under protest and thereafter they have made a number of representations to respondent No.2 for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and that the last of the representations was made on 22-3-2010. The petitioners further pleaded that considering the said representation, respondent No.2 has addressed letter dated 31-3-2010 to respondent No.3 to take necessary action. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, opposed the Writ Petition stating that the pleadings in the Writ Petition are vague and that the petitioners have not stated as to the date on which they have received the award notices under Section 12(2) of the Act and whether the request made by them for reference is within the stipulated time of two months as envisaged under Section 12(2) of the Act. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition completely vindicates the stand of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Except making a bald statement that “…the petitioners have made umpteen number of representations to the 2nd respondent…”, the petitioners failed to indicate the date on which they have received the notices of the award of compensation and the first of the representations made for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court. It is trite that any request for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court shall be made under Section 18 of the Act within two months of receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act. There is no provision for extension of the period of limitation under the Act. Unless the petitioners have come out with the specific plea that they have in fact made an application in writing as envisaged under Section 18(1) of the Act and that such an application was made within the period stipulated under sub-section (2)(b) of Section 18 of the Act, their claim for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court cannot be accepted. Even according to the petitioners, the award was passed as far back as 12-11-2001 and they allowed more than 9 years to pass by before they woke up and approached respondent No.2 with a request for reference. In the light of the above incontrovertible facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP No.23993/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 3-11-2011 L.R. copies AM