THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.16173 of 2010 Dated 08th December, 2011 Between: Kasireddi Penchal Reddy (died) rep.by his LRs and others …Petitioners And The Special Collector (LA), Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi, Sankarapuram, Kadapa and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: 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 is an unfortunate case where on account of improper follow-up of the reference cases, they have become abortive thereby depriving the petitioners of their right to claim enhancement of compensation for their lands acquired by the respondents. The undisputed facts are that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for construction of Somasila project vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 26.10.1995. An award was passed on 29.01.1998. The petitioners have submitted their applications for reference of the issue relating to fixation of compensation. Respondent No.2 has accordingly referred the applications to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet (for short ‘the civil Court’) on 30.12.1999. It is the admitted fact that the Assistant Government Pleader, Rajampet has received the applications from respondent No.2 and acknowledged the same. On verification of file, it was found that the Assistant Government Pleader has submitted the applications in the civil Court and they were returned on 25.07.2011 for compliance of certain objections. It is the pleaded case of respondent No.2 that the files were re-presented on 10.12.2001 through the Assistant Government Pleader, but references were not registered. The petitioners have got a legal notice issued in the year 2008. As no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. On 19.08.2011, this Court has directed the Registry to call for a report from the civil Court on what further steps in pursuance of the reference were taken by it. Accordingly, a report was sent by the learned District Judge, wherein it is stated that no references made in the year 1999 under Section 18 of the Act are pending in the civil Court. The report is silent as to whether the returned files were re- presented and if so, why the references were not registered and disposed of. The fact, however, remains that the references are not pending before the civil Court. This situation is brought about obviously on account of lack of diligence on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer and the lawyer, who dealt with the cases. For their failure, the petitioners cannot be put to loss. In this context, this Court needs to observe that even the petitioners also did not act with diligence. They kept silent from 1999 till 2008 when they have for the first time caused a legal notice issued. Thus, their inertia has contributed to the non-registration of references. In the light of the above facts, I am of the considered view that the respondents have to take remedial steps by making fresh references. Respondent No.2 is accordingly directed to forthwith refer the claims of the petitioners to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and in any case not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. When this Court observed that the petitioners have contributed to the delay of about 10 years, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to controvert this view of the Court. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take advantage of their lethargy by claiming interest for this period. Accordingly, to balance the interests of the petitioners and that of the public, I find it appropriate to direct that the petitioners will not be entitled to interest for a period of 10 years i.e., from 1999 to 2009. The civil Court shall accordingly exclude this period for the purpose of payment of interest to the petitioners, while passing award under Section 18 of the Act. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.20379 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th December, 2011 VGB