IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 17791 of 2000 Between: Avula Vijaya Lakshmi alias Vijayamma, W/o. A.Sivarami Reddy R/o. D.No.1-542, Ameneni Street, B.K.Palle, Madanapalli Town and Post, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Penukonda, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in rejecting the request to refer the matter to the Civil Court U/Sec. 18 of the L.A.Act in respect of the land in Sy.No.738/3 to the extent of Ac.0-90 cents, 437/34B to the extent of Ac.0-54 cents of Pedaballi Kothapalle of N.P.Kunta Mandal and also in refusing to refer the matter U/Sec. 30 of L.A.Act to the Civil Court in respect of Ac.0-85 cents of land in Sy.No.699 and 0-04 cents, of land in Sy.No.738/1 of Peddaballi, Kothapalle Village of N.P.Kunta Mandal by his endorsement in RC.No.521/98/B dt: /5/2000 signed on 14/6/2000 is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respendent to refer the matter U/Sec. 18 to 30 of the L.A. Act to the Civil Court in respect of the above said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.SUDARSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17791 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring endorsement of respondent vide R.C.No.521/98/B dated 14.06.2000, whereby and whereunder request of petitioner for reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act, for brevity) as well as Section 30 of LA Act was rejected, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to refer the matter to cvil Court under both the above provisions of LA Act. An extent of Acs.83.97 in various survey numbers was acquired under LA Act for Pedaballi reservoir project left canal under Award No.38/99 dated 24.12.1999. Petitioner is allegedly owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.54 in survey No.437-34B situated at Pedaballi Kothapalli Village, N.P. Kunta Mandal, Thanakallu, Anantapur District (hereafter called, item No.1). She alleges that she is also owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.90 in survey No.738/3 (hereafter called, item No.2), Ac.0.04 in survey No.738/1 (hereafter called, item No.3) and Acs.0.85 in survey No.699 (hereafter called, item No.4) situated in said Village. She statedly appeared before respondent on 29.10.1999 when respondent allegedly obtained her signatures on a printed form, wherein it was mentioned that an amount of Rs.18,000/- per acre was awarded. Petitioner, therefore, allegedly made an application on that day itself requesting that award be referred to civil Court under Section 18 of LA Act. She also gave another representation not to pass any award in respect of item Nos.3 and 4. She also states that sometime thereafter she went to the office of respondent and received two cheques for Rs.13,200-30ps and Rs.22,032-00 for item Nos.1 and 2. She also claims item Nos.2 and 3, but her request for reference under Section 30 of LA Act was not considered and the same was rejected. Therefore, instant writ petition is filed. Respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. The factum of acquisition of land and payment of compensation under award is admitted. It is further stated that petitioner has consented for payment of compensation for item No.1. She filed an application on 29.10.1999 along with document No.1606 of 1936 in respect of item No.4 with a request to refer the matter to civil Court. As per village accounts, item Nos.1 and 2 stand in the name of petitioner, who gave consent for compensation in respect of item No.1, and compensation was ordered to be paid in respect of both items. Item No.3 belongs to K. Venkataramana Reddy and K. Subba Reddy (joint pattadars), who requested for compensation in favour of former. Item No.4 belongs to Smt. Cuddapah Ramajulamm, who also gave consent for compensation. In view of these, Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) was asked to verify ownership particulars in respect of item Nos.3 and 4. He reported that petitioner is not pattadar for these two items. Accordingly compensation was paid to above named persons. For seeking a reference under Section 18 read with Section 31(2) of LA Act, claimant should receive compensation under protest and file application within six weeks, if he/she is present on the date of award and if not present, within two months from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of LA Act. Petitioner’s application was rejected as she received compensation without any protest. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that even if petitioner received compensation in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 without protest, as there is dispute between petitioner and others in respect of item Nos.3 and 4, respondent ought to have referred the matter under Section 30 of LA Act to civil Court. He placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO v. D.P. Balavva[1]. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that respondent verified records, got the matter enquired into by MRO and came to the conclusion that in respect of item Nos.3 and 4, petitioner is not owner and therefore there was justification for rejecting her request for reference. I n D.P. Balavva (supra) this Court laid down that while exercising powers under Section 18 of LA Act, LAO should make a judicial order and that he cannot ignore the objections raised. A perusal of impugned endorsement as well as counter-affidavit would belie any submission that respondent has not applied mind judiciously. The basis for rejecting claim of petitioner for compensation in respect of item Nos. 3 and 4 was revenue records/village accounts and report of MRO. It is interesting to note that though respondent, prima facie, came to the conclusion that petitioner is not owner of item Nos.3 and 4, still he referred the matter to MRO and only after getting a report from MRO, who obviously again verified revenue records, he came to the conclusion that petitioner is not owner/claimant in respect of item Nos.3 and 4. In that view of the matter, impugned endorsement is unexceptional. The writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27th February, 2008 GHN To 1. Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub-Collector), Narsapuram, West Godavari District. 2. 2CCs to GP for Land Acquisition 3. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MADHURI} [1] 1996(1) ALD 186 (D.B.)