HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.91 OF 1995 Dt.17.8.2010 Between: A.P. Housing Board, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Hyderabad. ..Appellant And V.Ragappa and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S.NO.91 OF 1995 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Appellant is the A.P. Housing Board represented by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Hyderabad. This appeal is filed against the order dated 24.6.1988 in O.P.No.56 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Penukonda, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) after obtaining leave of this Court as the appellant being the beneficiary of the land in question. The learned Subordinate Judge by the aforesaid order not only decided the reference under Section 30 of the Act, but also decided the reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent- claimants have not filed any petition or application under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Sub Collector, Penukonda, to refer the matter to the civil court for enhancement of compensation and in the absence of any such application the Reference Court is not entitled to adjudicate the matter under Section 18 of the Act and therefore the reference under Section 18 of the Act is without jurisdiction. It is further stated that the Reference Court allowed I.A.No.87 of 1987 filed under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C, to amend the reference so as to include the aspect under Section 18 of the Act and therefore the adjudication under Section 18 of the Act by the Reference Court is without any jurisdiction and contrary to law. Admittedly, this appeal has been dismissed for default against respondent No.8 and notices are not served on respondent No.5 on the ground that respondent No.5 died and no steps have been taken to bring the legal representatives of the deceased. So far as respondent No.10 is concerned, notice could not be served. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal so far as respondents 5, 8 and 10 are concerned. The appeal survives in respect of other respondent-claimants alone. The land to an extent of Ac.1.54 cents in Sy.No.399/6 of Hindupur Village of Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District, was acquired for taking up housing scheme for general public by the appellant – Andhra Pradesh Housing Board vide award No.6/82-83, dated 22.7.1982. As per records, it is evident that the Sub Collector, Penukonda, vide letter in Rc.No.4250/79-K, dated 25.11.1982, made reference under Section 30 of the Act stating that the award has been enclosed to the reference made under Section 18 of the Act. It is stated that separate application under Section 30 of the Act was made as required vide letter of the Subordinate Judge in Dis.No.829, dated 9.11.1982. Accordingly, it is stated that the case may be taken on file and O.P. number assigned at an early date. The said letter of the Sub Collector addressed to the learned Subordinate Judge indicates that reference is made both under Section 30 and Section 18 of the Act. It appears that the O.P. was numbered by the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Act alone for adjudication, but not under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the claimants filed various claim petitions and one of the claim petitions was made on 17.8.1983. Certain claimants have not only claimed that they are absolute and exclusive owners of the said property in question, but they have also objected to the quantum and adequacy of compensation offered and requested to enquire the matter and adjudicate on both the issues about the rights of the respective parties and also for the grant of compensation as the reference was only under Section 30 of the Act. The claimants filed an application in I.A.No.87 of 1987 in the said O.P.No.56 of 1982 contending that they have urged both the contentions in their statement before the Land Acquisition Officer long back, but also in their claim statement before the court to refer the matter under Section 30 as well as Section 18 of the Act, but the reference was made only under Section 30 of the Act. Accordingly, I.A.No.87 of 1987 under Order VI Rule 17 and 151 C.P.C was filed to notify the Government about the facts of the affidavit and direct the Government to amend the reference so as to include the aspects under Section 18 of the Act also for a comprehensive decision in the case. On the said application, counter has been filed. After hearing both sides, the learned Subordinate Judge made the following order on 18.12.1987: “Perused the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in G.Janakirama Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer, Peddapuram [1987 (2) APLJ (SN) of recent cases P-12], which decision also consisting similar questions in the present petition. In that decision it is held that application for amendment for including reference under Section 18 also cannot be rejected and it can be permitted. In this case also, the reference was also made requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act as the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is low. Hence, in view of the decision, the petition is allowed.” The record goes to show that the statement filed on behalf of the claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer was in June, 1982, but whereas the award was passed on 27.7.1982. Therefore, the application made before the Land Acquisition Officer during the pendency of the award proceedings and the date of the award cannot be taken into account for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act. We are unable to find any other application filed after 27.7.1982. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no specific record in support of the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act also. Though it is indicated in the letter of the Sub Collector, Penukonda, dated 25.11.1982 stating that the award is enclosed to the reference made under Section 18 of the Act, but we do not find any specific reference on record relating to the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Pursuant to the order in I.A.No.87 of 1987 alone the Land Acquisition Officer amended the reference to include Section 18 of the Act also. As there is no specific finding by the learned Subordinate Judge whether any applications are filed after the award is passed within the prescribed time and whether the reference is actually made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to set aside the award and remit back to the learned Subordinate Judge, Penukonda to reconsider matter with reference to Section 18 of the Act and pass appropriate orders afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside (except in respect of respondents 5, 8 and 10) and the matter is remitted to the learned Subordinate Judge, Penukonda to reconsider the matter with reference to Section 18 of the Act and pass appropriate orders afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 17.8.2010 kpr