THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.18625 of 2008 BETWEEN: 1. Lankala Cennaiah and others PETITIONERS And 1. Special Collector, (Land Acquisition), GNSS, Project, Sankarapuram, Apsara Cenima Hall Road, Kadapah, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V. Viswanatham Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: Complaining inaction on the part of the respondents in referring the matter for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The matter does not require consideration in extenso. The admitted facts are that an extent of Ac.1.25 cents of land along with 105 Malta Trees belonging to the 1st petitioner (died per L.Rs 2 to 7) was acquired in respect of which Award No.1/87, dated 18.03.1987 has been passed. Another extent of Ac.0.61 cents along with 76 Malta trees belonging to the petitioners 8 and 9 was also acquired and in respect of which Award No.2/87 dated 9.03.1987 was passed. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the 1st petitioner on 23.03.1987 and on petitioner Nos.8 and 9 on 24.03.1987. The petitioners not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, sought reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication by the Civil Court. Needless to say that if a claimant seeks reference, an application in that regard has to be filed within two months from the date of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. If such an application is made, the Land Acquisition Authorities are duty bound to refer the same to the civil Court for adjudication. In the instant case, the controversy centres on the question whether the petitioners had made such applications within the stipulated time. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner (since died) submitted application on 24.04.1987 and petitioners 8 and 9 submitted on 22.04.1987 (incorrectly mentioned as 27.04.1987) whereas according to the respondents the petitioners filed applications on 5.06.1987. If the petitioners had in fact made applications on 5.06.1987 the same would be beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and if really the applications had been filed on 24.04.1987 and 22.04.1987 as claimed by the petitioners, the matter is liable to be referred. It may be mentioned that in so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, who said to have been filed his application on 24.04.1987, the respondents in the counter affidavit have not specifically traversed the said fact and in so far as the petitioners 8 and 9 are concerned, copies of the applications which are said to have been submitted are filed as material papers in the writ petition. A perusal of the same, would show that they bear stamp dated 22.04.1987 by the office of the respondents. From the said material, it may have to be inferred that the petitioners 8 and 9 submitted their applications on 22.04.1987 itself. The respondents, however, would dispute the said date stating that the petitioners got inserted antedate with the help of some unscrupulous staff of the office of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the applications were made on 5.06.1987 only and the said applications were entered in the concerned register on the same day itself. It may be noticed that even while taking a stand that the applications were inserted, the respondents have not denied the genuineness of the stamp borne on the copies of the applications. The petitioners filed reply affidavit asserting that the applications were filed only on 22.04.1987 and that the acknowledgement in the form of rubber stamp bears the initials of one Gopal Rao, the then Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project. In the light of this material and the stand of the respondents that the applications were made on 5.06.1987, mere entry in the concerned record is not liable to be accepted. If really the allegations are correct, it is not known what disciplinary action has been initiated by identifying those persons. In the light of the afore said facts, particularly non-traverse of the statement that the 1st petitioner has made application on 24.04.1987 and the acknowledgment borne on the copies of the petitions, and non denial of genuineness of the said acknowledgment, I am of the view that the petitioners submitted applications on 24.04.1987 and 22.04.1987, which are within the prescribed period of limitation. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication by the civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 6th April, 2011 Js.