IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20410 OF 2002 Dt.05.2.2010 Between: M. Ajit Reddy and another … Petitioners And Mandal Revenue Officer Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs. G. Neeraja Reddy for Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20410 OF 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.A/1686/01 dt.22.8.2001 of respondent No.1 and direct the respondents to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). Heard Mrs. G. Neeraja Reddy, representing Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioners are owners of the lands admeasuring Acs.4.25 gts., in S.Nos.124 and 125 of Anumula Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. The said lands were acquired by the respondents for providing house sites to weaker sections. An award was passed in September, 1984. The alleged General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of petitioner No.1 received the compensation allegedly under protest with an endorsement made by him requesting for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As the dispute was not referred, the petitioners caused a legal notice issued on 26.07.1991. The petitioners alleged that on receipt of the legal notice, respondent No.1 addressed a letter dt.14.4.1992 to the Civil Court purporting to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act. As no further action was taken on the said reference, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.17248 of 2001. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the respondents to pass appropriate order. In compliance with the said direction, respondent No.1 passed order dt.22.08.2001 (The learned Government Pleader states that the year 2001 was mentioned as a mistake for the year 2002), whereby the petitioners’ request for reference of the dispute is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit. Respondent No.1 sought to justify his order rejecting the reference not only on the grounds mentioned in the rejection order, but also on an additional ground, namely, that the GPA executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of the GPA holder was in relation to the lands in S.Nos.125, 126, 127 and 128 only, but not in respect of S.No.124 and that therefore the said GPA holder has no right either to receive compensation or to file an application before the authority seeking reference in respect of the lands in S.No.124. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the request for reference was rejected on the following grounds. “1. The petitioner has received compensation without protest. 2. The petitioner was said to be received the compensation under protest in the form “C.C.” available in the file seems to be attested by the forged initial signature of then the Tahsildar Nidmanoor and other two “C.C.” forms available in the file do not contain any signature of the then Tahsildar.” As regards the first ground, it is fairly conceded by the learned Government Pleader that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in District Collector, Kakinada v. P. Nagabhushana Rao[1], the said ground cannot be sustained. As regards the second ground, in my opinion, the petitioners cannot be denied reference even assuming that they have forged the initials of the Tahsildar under the purported endorsement of protest. If the petitioners’ application for reference cannot be rejected on the ground of absence of protest, it hardly matters whether the Mandal Revenue Officer initialled under the so called endorsement of protest made by the petitioners. If the petitioners have indulged in the act of forgery of initial of an officer, the respondents are certainly entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners in this regard. But, the statutory right of the petitioners seeking reference to the Civil Court cannot be denied to them on this count, more so, when it is not in dispute that the application of the petitioners for reference to Civil Court is within the time limit stipulated by the Statute. With regard to the additional ground contained in the counter affidavit, I am not inclined to accept this ground because the respondents cannot supplement the reasons by way of counter affidavits (See Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji[2] and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi[3]). For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to refer the dispute under Section 18 of the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02.2.2010 bnr [1] 2003 (6) ALT 353 (FB) [2] AIR 1952 SC 16 [3] AIR 1978 SC 851