THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20913 OF 2002 DATED: 24.11.2011 Between: 1. Badineni Sathaiah and 2 others. … Petitioners And 1. The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20913 OF 2002 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of diﬀerent extents of land situated in Sy.Nos.15 & 26 of Bikkanaguda Village, M.R. Dandepalli, Adilabad District. The said land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections and by award dated 25.3.1985 made by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer the compensation for the acquired land was ﬁxed at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per acre together with 15% solatium. The petitioners claim that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings and they came to know about the Award dated 25.3.1985 only on 16.08.2002 when the revenue oﬃcials came to their land and instructed the petitioners not to cultivate the same. Immediately they applied for the certiﬁed copy of the Award and then they came to know that the award was passed in the name of their deceased father and a very meagre compensation was granted at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per acre. It was also found that 15% solatium was awarded instead of 30% and moreover no interest was awarded as provided under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 16.09.2002 seeking reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act contending that the value of the lands is not less than Rs.50,000/- per acre by the date of the notiﬁcation. Having received the legal notice, the 2nd respondent gave a reply dated 30.09.2002 stating that neither the petitioners nor their father attended the award enquiry nor received the compensation. It is also stated that the award notices dated 16.10.1986 issued by the Revenue Oﬃcer, Dandepalli were refused and therefore they were aﬃxed on the houses of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition disputing the version of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners had refused to receive the notices and contending that the 2nd respondent had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act . The petitioners also sought a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation amount of Rs.26,162-50 ps with 30% solatium instead of 15% awarded in the award proceedings dated 25.3.1985 and also interest thereon from 6.6.1983 till the date of payment and further to direct the respondents to make a reference to the competent Civil Court. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioners were very well aware of the acquisition proceedings and they also ﬁled petitions on 5.1.985 and 28.1.1985 before passing the award with a request not to acquire the land. It is also stated that notices under Sections 9(1), 9(3) & 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued and got published in the village. However the petitioners neither participated in the award enquiry nor attended at the time of passing of award nor received the compensation amount. The notices dated 16.10.1986 issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, M.R. Dandepalli were also refused by the petitioners and therefore they were aﬃxed on their houses before the villagers. As such the possession of the lands was taken on 4.3.1994 and the compensation amount awarded was deposited in the Civil deposit vide Challan No.516, dated 15.12.1998. It is contended that since the petitioners failed to make an application seeking reference to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, they are not eligible to seek any reference at this stage. The claim of the petitioners that they came to know about the acquisition proceedings only on 16.8.2002 has been categorically denied. The petitioners ﬁled a reply aﬃdavit disputing the stand taken by the respondents that they had refused to receive the notices and that the said notices were affixed on their houses. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly the award was passed on 25.3.1985. Even according to the respondents, the petitioners were not present when the award was made. As per Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has to issue notice of his award to such of the persons who were not present when the award was made. According to the petitioners, such notice was never issued by the respondents and that they came to know about the award only on 16.8.2002 when the revenue oﬃcials visited the land in question. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the notice under Section 12 (2) was issued on 16.10.1986, but the petitioners refused to receive the same. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has placed before this Court the original record to substantiate the case of the respondents that the petitioners had refused to receive the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The record reveals that the notice under Section12(2) was issued on 16.10.1986 by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dandepalli to the petitioners 1 and 2 and their father Venkaiah. The petitioners had refused to receive the notice and also objected to aﬃx the same at their houses. The record also contained the statement of the person who went to serve the notices. The said statement was signed not only by the person who tendered the notice to the petitioners but also by the Sarpanch of the village. In the light of the said material, I am satisﬁed that there was proper service of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. However the learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon BHAGWAN DAS v. STATE OF U.P.[1] vehemently contended that there was no justiﬁable reason to disbelieve the petitioners’ claim that they came to know about the award proceedings only on 16.8.2002. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was no evidence to show that the notice was tendered personally to them and that they refused to accept it. The copy of the notices produced by the respondents therein contained only an endorsement of the person who was sent to serve the notice stating that the farmers refused to put their signatures. In the light of such vague endorsement, the Supreme Court disbelieved the stand taken by the respondents that there was valid service of notice. However this is a case where the statement of the person who was sent to serve the notices was recorded in the presence of the Sarpanch. Moreover, the adjacent land owners had received compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer. Hence the claim of the petitioners that there was no valid service of notice under Section 12 (2) cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that a duty is cast upon the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to the persons who were not present personally or their representatives when the award was made. While pointing out that whereas the award was passed on 25.3.1985, Section 12 (2) notice was issued only on 16.10.1986, it is vehemently contended that since the statutory requirement was not complied with, the limitation prescribed under Section 18 (2) would not begin to run. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision in FARHATULLAH v. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION[2]. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the said decision that a duty is cast on the Collector or the Oﬃcer passing the award as required under Section 12 (2) of the Act. However, the proviso (b) to Section 18 (2) itself makes it clear that the limitation of two months starts from the date of service of notice under Section 12 (2). Hence the delay on the part of the respondents in issuing the notice under Section 12(2) cannot be a ground to consider the belated request of the petitioners for reference under Section 18 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that the petitioners failed to seek reference within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Hence there cannot be any direction to the respondents to refer the matter to the Civil Court. However, keeping in view that the award was admittedly made on 25.3.1985 i.e., after the commencement of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to statutory beneﬁts of 30% solatium instead of 15% apart from additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondent No.2 to calculate the solatium and the additional amount to which the petitioners are entitled to as per the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 and make the payment together with compensation awarded under the award dated 25.3.1985 as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.11.2011 gbs [1] 2010 (2) SCALE 661 [2] 1975 ALT 492