THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.2701 of 2008 Dated 26th April, 2011 Between: Anantha Ravi …Petitioner And The District Collector (Land Acquisition), Chittoor and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not referring the claim of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) to the competent civil Court as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of various extents of lands comprised in different survey numbers of R.Agraharam Village, which were acquired for the purpose of formation of a bypass railway line connecting Gudur-Renigunta and Gooty, under award No.6 of 2007 passed on 30.04.2007. It is not in dispute between the parties that till the amount was paid to the petitioner under a cheque on 22.08.2007, no formal award notice was served on the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia averred that along with the cheque, notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on 22.08.2007. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is specifically averred that at the time of receiving the cheque, the petitioner has written in the register that the amount of compensation is insufficient and that he is receiving the same under protest with a request to refer the dispute to the competent civil Court for determination of appropriate compensation. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that the petitioner made an endorsement in Form-CC as “received under protest”, but the averment of the petitioner that he has made an endorsement for referring the dispute to the civil Court is denied. In view of this dispute between the parties, this Court has summoned the register, a perusal of which, would show that the petitioner has received the cheque for Rs.26,55,111/- under protest under his signature affixed on a revenue stamp in Form-CC. But as pleaded by the petitioner, no request was made for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil Court for determination of proper market value. Under Section 18(1) of the Act, if any person interested in the land has not accepted the award, he may require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court, whether his objection is to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Under Section 18(2) of the Act, an application in that regard stating the ground on which the objection to the award is taken shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the award by the Collector, if the owner was present or represented before the Collector at the time of passing of the award and in all other cases, within two months from the date of service of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though a notice of award was served on his client at the time of receipt of cheque in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, the same was not served on him through proper service and therefore, it is deemed that there is no proper service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. In my opinion, this submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted because the fact of service of notice under Section 12(2) is not in dispute. The place and mode of service of such notice has absolutely no relevance so long as there is no dispute on the factum of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. As the petitioner has not denied the fact of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act along with the cheque at the office of the Land Acquisition Officer on 22.08.2007 and the further fact that the petitioner has not applied to respondent No.2 for reference of dispute at any subsequent point of time, he is not entitled for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act. Even the writ petition filed by the petitioner was beyond two months period from the date of receipt of award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3475 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th April, 2011 VGB