IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6054 of 2006 Between: Nimmaganti Surya Rao, S/o. Pullaiah, R/o. J.Annavaram, Yeleswaram Mandal, East Godavari Dist. ...…PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Yeleru Reservoir, Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram, East Godavari Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for the Respondent: Asst.Govt. Pleader for land acquisition. The Court made the following : ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to refer the dispute for fixing market value in respect of the lands of the petitioner covered under Award Nos.23 and 47 of 1989 dated 6-7-1989 and 24-11-1989, respectively, to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Certain lands of the petitioner were acquired under the above-mentioned Awards. The petitioner claimed that on 8-8-1989 he filed an application seeking reference of his claim for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to the competent Civil Court. As the said application was not considered, the petitioner claimed to have filed two other applications on 8-8-1997 and 18-9-2000. Since the respondents have not taken any action on the said applications, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20872 of 1996 in this Court, which was disposed of on 30-6-1997 with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the question whether the application filed by the petitioner deserved to be allowed, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said order, the respondents have not taken a decision on the request of the petitioner for reference of his case to the competent Civil Court. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit in which it is averred that Awards were passed on 6-7-1989 and 24-11-1989 and the petitioner ought to have made his applications on or before 6-9- 1989 and 25-1-1990, respectively, but, whereas, he submitted his application, in respect of both the Awards, on 14-2-1990, by which date the statutory period of 60 days had expired for filing application for reference. Heard Sri C.V.R Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner claimed that he made his application on 8-8-1989, and also filed a copy of the said application before this Court, the respondents have not taken any steps to refer his claim to the civil Court. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition produced the record and argued that on 13-2-1990 the register contains an entry showing receipt of application of the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act. She submitted that as the period of limitation, admittedly, expired by that time, the petitioner’s application was not referred to the civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the record produced by the respondents does not contain the applications proper and that certain pages are missing. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Though the petitioner filed copies of applications in Telugu, purported to be dated 8-8-1989, they do not contain any official seal evincing receipt of those applications. It is, no doubt, true that the records produced by the respondents do not contain the application said to have been received on 13-2-1990. But, in my considered view, this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to accept the contention of the petitioner that he filed his applications before expiry of the limitation period of 60 days. The respondents have been consistent in their stand right from the beginning. In their counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No.20872 of 1996 they have averred that the application filed by the petitioner on 14-2-1990 was barred by time. The same contention is reiterated in the counter-affidavit filed in this Writ Petition as well. There is a small discrepancy in the date, i.e., the register shows that the application was received on 13-2-1990, whereas in the counter- affidavits filed in both the Writ Petitions 14-2-1990 was mentioned as the date of receipt of the application. The learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that mentioning of 14-2-1990 in the counters is a typographical mistake. I am inclined to accept this contention. The register, which I have perused, shows that the application of the petitioner was received on 13-2-1990. Having filed the Writ Petition, the burden is on the Writ Petitioner to, prima facie, satisfy this Court that he filed his application for reference within the statutory period of 60 days. As the petitioner failed in this regard, he is not entitled to any relief. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------------ ------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 25-2-2008 MNR