THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO. 5 2 0 OF 2006 J U D G M E N T : ( Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 06-1-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.441 of 2006 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-explaining the delay and laches in approaching this court after a long lapse of eleven years, in respect of the acquisition, which was completed more than a decade ago. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing survey no. 640 admeasuring Acs:4-24 guntas situated at Jallaram village of Ramagundam Revenue Mandal in Karimnagar district. It is stated that the said land was acquired for the purpose of coal mining operations of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. Due to dispute regarding the title and eligibility to receive compensation the matter was referred to Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court; namely, the Court of Subordinate Judge at Peddapalli held that the matter in favour of the appellant and ordered payment of compensation to her by its order dated 10-11-1994. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the market value at a very low rate, which is much below the existing market rate even on the date of notification and the same was not less than Rs.80,000/- per acre then. While things stood thus, the appellant gave an application for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the respondent on 20-12-1994, which was acknowledged by him and he also gave a receipt acknowledging the receiving of such application on 20-12-1994. In spite of her submitting such application, the respondent even till this date has not made reference sought for by her, though she approached him on number of occasions and went on requesting him to make such reference. The appellant being a poor illiterate lady and she is suffering a lot due to the respondent not taking any steps on her application for reference under ection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and even after approaching him and making such request on number of occasions. Therefore, she filed the writ petition to declare the action of the respondent in not making reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act even in spite of her making such application within time as arbitrary, illegal and amounts to dereliction of duty on his part. 3. Sri I. Aga Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned single Judge in dismissing WP.No.441` of 2006 on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition is not sutainable in law in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel further contended that the appellant is a lady whose land measuring Acs:4-24 guntas situated in survey no.640 at Jallaram village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar district was acquired for the purpose of mining operations by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court and the Civil Court decided the matter in favour of the appellant by order dated 10-11-1984. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the respondent on 20-12- 1994, which was acknowledged by him by issuing a receipt acknowledging the receiving of such application on 20-12-1994. In the affidavit filed by her, the appellant submitted that in spite of her approaching the respondent on number of occasions and making request to make such reference also the respondent did not make the reference. Thus, the observation of the learned single Judge that no explanation is coming forth from the appellant for explaining the delay is not correct. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned single Judge failed to see that when there is a prima facie proof of application being filed before the respondent under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, respondent is bound to make such reference and it is rather for the respondent to explain why he did not make such reference in spite of the application being filed in time. Thus, the delay or laches are on the part of the respondent, for which the appellant should not be penalized. 5. Per Contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition supported the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar, who is the sole respondent. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is the owner of the land in an extent of Acs:4-25 guntas in survey no.640 situated at Jallaram village in Karimnagar district. In view of the fact that the title of the appellant had been decided by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli, on reference made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also an admitted fact that the land in an extent of Acs:4-25 guntas in survey no.640 situated at Jallaram village of Kamanpur Mandal belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of coal mining operations of Singareni collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. The learned Government further submitted that the General Manager (P), Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani had filed a requisition for acquisition of Acs:37-28 guntas of land in survey nos. 173, 174, 178, 179, 587, 589, 590, 593, 640, 642 and 643 situated at Jallaram village of Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar district for the purpose of coal mining operations of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. Accordingly, the said land has been acquired under Land Acquisition Act and after due process, Award No.7 of 1993, dated 23-10-1993 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer for an amount of Rs.8,68,260/-. Compensation was also paid to all the land owners except for an extent of Ac:4-25 guntas in survey no.640 situated at Jallaram village of Kamanpur Mandal. On 23-10-1993 notice under section 12 (2) was issued to the appellant and the same was served on her on 29- 10-1993. At the time of payment of compensation, the other persons have raised dispute that they are the owners of the land to an extent of Acs:4-25 guntas in survey no.640 situated at Jallaram village. In view of the dispute between the appellant and others with regard to title, the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli vide Lr.No.B1/262/89, dated 29-11-1993 for adjudication of title and the award amount was also deposited. On reference, the Subordinate Judge, Peddapali has decided the title in favour of the appellant in OP.No.60 of 1993, dated 10-1-1994. When the notice under section 12 (2) was served on the appellant on 29-10-1993, the appellant had submitted application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-12-1994. As the appellant filed the application under section 18 of the Act, after one year two months from the date of passing of award, the same had been rejected as time barred and the same was intimated to the appellant. It is averred that the appellant after a long lapse of eleven years filed WP.No.441 of 2005 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned single Judge had dismissed the said writ petition on 6-1- 2006 holding that the appellant had not explained the delay and latches in approaching the court after a lapse of eleven years in respect of the acquisition of her land, which was completed almost more than a decade ago. When the appellant having filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Officer after a lapse of one year two months, she cannot maintain either writ petition or writ appeal before this court that too she approached this Court after a lapse of eleven years. The respondent therefore, desired to dismiss the writ appeal with costs. 6. Heard Sri I.Aga Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the order impugned in this writ appeal. 7. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing survey no. 640 admeasuring Acs:4-24 guntas situated at Jallaram village of Ramagundam Revenue Mandal in Karimnagar district. It is stated that the said land was acquired for the purpose of coal mining operations of Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani. Admittedly, due to dispute regarding the title and eligibility to receive compensation the matter was referred to Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court; namely, the Court of Subordinate Judge at Peddapalli held that the matter in favour of the appellant and ordered payment of compensation to her by its order dated 10-11-1994. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the market value at a very low rate, which is much below the existing market rate even on the date of notification and the same was not less than Rs.80,000/- per acre then. Thereafter, the appellant gave an application for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the respondent on 20- 12-1994, which was acknowledged by the respondent and the respondent also issued a receipt acknowledging the receiving of such application on 20-12-1994. The main grievance of the appellant is that in spite of her submitting such application, the respondent even till this date has not made reference sought for by her, though she approached him on number of occasions and went on requesting him to make such reference. But as can be seen from the counter- affidavit filed by the respondent it appears that there was dispute between the appellant and others with regard to title, the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the matter under section 30 of the Land Acquisition to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli vide Lr.No.B1/262/89, dated 29-11-1993 for adjudication of title and the award amount was also deposited. On reference, the Subordinate Judge, Peddapali has decided the title in favour of the appellant in OP.No.60 of 1993, dated 10-1-1994. When the notice under section 12 (2) was served on the appellant on 29-10-1993, the appellant had submitted application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-12-1994. As the appellant filed the application under section 18 of the Act, after one year two months from the date of passing of award, the same had been rejected as time barred and the same was intimated to the appellant. 8. We have carefully examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition at the hearing. But in view of non-explaining the delay in filing the application for reference to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, we are of the view that the findings of the learned Judge holding that “no explanation is coming forth, explaining the delay and laches in approaching this Court after a long lapse of eleven years, in respect of the acquisition, which was completed almost a decade ago”, holds good and does not call for any indulgence of this Court. 9. For the above mentioned reason, we see no reason to entertain this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI . ______________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 02/2/2009. I s L