IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2480 of 2003 Between: Lande Govind Rao S/o.Nagorao R/o. Mamidiguda, Mandal Adilabad, District Adilabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acqusition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer Adilabad, Adilabad Dist. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NAZEER KHAN Counsel for the respondent: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in referring the dispute, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the 1894 Act”), to the competent Civil Court in respect of the land of the petitioner acquired by the respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The area of dispute in this case is very narrow. Award was passed on 29-10-1997. Notice dated 11-11-1997 under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was served on the petitioner. There is a dispute regarding the date on which such notice was served. While it is the case of the petitioner that the same was served on 15-11-1997, the plea of the respondent is that it was served on 13-11-1997. The petitioner made his application for reference of the dispute to the Civil Court on 15-01-1998. Assuming that notice was served on the petitioner on 13-11-1997, as contended by the respondent, under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the day on which the notice was received shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the time from which Section 12(2) notice of the 1894 Act has been received by the petitioner. In M/s Saketh India Limited and others vs. M/s India Securities Limited[1], the Supreme Court held that the rule is well established that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act is to be done, the ﬁrst day from which the limitation commences shall be excluded and the last day is required to be included. If we apply this principle to the facts of the present case, the period of two months commences from 14-11-1997 and the petitioner ought to have ﬁled his application on or before 14-01-1998. However, it has come out during the hearing that 14-01-1998 happened to be a holiday for Sankranthi festival. Sri Nazeer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed before me the relevant calendars, the correctness of which is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to show that 14-01-1998 was a public holiday on account of Sankranthi festival. Section 11 of the Andhra Pardesh General Clauses Act, 1891 (for short “the 1891 Act”) provides that where any act or any proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in Court or oﬃce on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or oﬃce is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in the due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or oﬃce is open. By applying Section 11 of the 1891 Act, the application ﬁled by the petitioner on 15-01-1998, shall be treated to have been ﬁled within the time prescribed by proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the 1894 Act. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Civil Court, in respect of the land in question, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th August, 2008 vrn [1] 1999 (2) Supreme 389