IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22410 of 2004 Between: 1 Rupavath Lachiram S/o.Jayram Nandipad, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. 2 Rupavath Hachu S/o.Jayram Tank Thanda, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. 3 Rupavath Thavuria S/o.Sakur Tank Thanda, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. 4 Rupavath Saida S/o.Jayaram Tank Thanda, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. 5 Rupavath Danavath Hanuma S/o.Jajya Nandipad, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. 6 D.Bala S/o.Jajya Nandipad, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. 7 Rupavath Bixa S/o.Rathya Nandipad, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. 8 Bharavath Anji W/oLalya Tank Thanda, Miryalgua (M), Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Land Acquisition Officer (RDO) Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer Miryalguda, Nalgonda Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to refer the petitioners cases to the Civil Court under sections 18 and 30 of the land acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation, resolve the ownership title; payment of compensation for the cattle shed, structures and coconut trees, etc. that existed on the land at the time of acquisition. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BATHINI PAPA RAO GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22410 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to refer the petitioners’ claims, under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), to the competent Civil Court for enhancement of compensation and resolving ownership of the acquired lands. 2. No counter affidavit is filed. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the request of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Act was rejected on the sole ground that, while receiving the compensation, the petitioners have not registered their protest. 4. I n District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District and others v. P.Nagabhushana Rao and others[1], a Full Bench of this Court held in categorical terms that when reference is sought within the period of limitation, failure to lodge protest expressly would not amount to waiver of right to seek reference and that making a request within the period of limitation will impliedly infer that the claimant/person interested has accepted the amount with protest. 5. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement by the Full Bench, the reason of rejection cannot be sustained. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to refer the claims of the petitioners, for enhanced compensation, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the competent Civil Court, within a period of eight weeks from today. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 25th August, 2008 v v [1] 2003(6) ALT 353 (F.B.)