IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6102 of 2005 Between: 1 G. Parvath Reddy, S/o. Late G. Ram Reddy, R/o. Tandra Village, Veladanda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 2 G. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Late G. Ram Reddy, R/o. Tandra Village, Veladanda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 3 G. Raghuma Reddy, S/o. Late G. Ram Reddy, R/o. Tandra Village, Veladanda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Velandanda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: 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 writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation as per Award No.42 of 1984 dated 30-01-1984 as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for a further direction to the respondents to pay compensation and refer the matter to civil Court as contemplated under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard Sri Harender Pershad, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, respondent No.3, it is, inter alia, stated that after exchange of lengthy correspondence, the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, instructed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar vide his letter dated 07-05-2005 to provide funds and accordingly, the latter provided funds to the answering respondent on 25-06-2005 and immediately on 02-07-2005 he referred the matter to the civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act for adjudication by depositing the compensation amount as determined by the then Tahasildar, Kalwakurthy in his Award dated 30-01-1984. In view of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first part of the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous. As regards the relief for reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioners have pleaded that they filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. However, they have not filed proof of filing such application. Under Section 18 of the Act, if the land owner is not satisfied with the compensation fixed, he is entitled to make an application, within the time stipulated under the said provision, for reference of the dispute to the civil Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the averment relating to the purported application of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act has not been adverted to. Hence, it is not possible for this Court to give any specific finding thereon. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to examine the claim of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Act. If, on perusal of the record, he is satisfied that the petitioners filed the application under Section 18 of the Act for reference, within the time limit prescribed under the said provision, he shall refer the dispute to the competent civil Court. It is needless to state that if the application is found to have been filed beyond the time, respondent No.1 is entitled to reject the request of the petitioners for reference. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.8105 of 2005 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 8th July, 2008 vrn