THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.253 of 2006 05.1.2006 Between: Sri Sadguru Ali Peera Saheb Swamulavari Darga Trust, Gudikal Village, Yamminagur Mandal, Kurnool District ... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District And others ...Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.253 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner trust is allegedly owned Acs.5.19 of agricultural land in Rampalli Village of Tuggali Mandal in Kurnool District. The land was acquired in 1995 for providing house-sites to members of weaker sections. Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) was issued on 15.6.1995 and after completing the procedure contemplated under the Act, the first respondent passed award No.11/96 dated 14.10.1996 determining the compensation at Rs.10,000/- per acre. As there was a dispute regarding entitlement/apportionment, the matter was referred to civil court under Section 30 of the Act and the reference was marked in favour of the petitioner as a result of which, the amount was paid to the petitioner on 11.4.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner made application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the civil court for enhancement of the compensation. As the same was not referred, the present writ petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the award was passed by the first respondent, the petitioner’s representative was not present and notice under Section 12 of the Act was not issued to the petitioner. Therefore the application made by the petitioner on 16.11.2002 under Section 18 of the Act ought to have been referred to the civil court by the first respondent. Opposing the writ petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) submits that the moment the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Act, the petitioner was very much aware about the Land Acquisition proceedings and he ought to have asked for reference under Section 18 of the Act. He could not have sought for a reference after lapse of about seven years after pronouncement of the judgment by the civil court in the reference under Section 30 of the Act. Alternatively, he submits that the civil court decided the matter in favour of the petitioner in 2002 and the petitioner received the payment on 14.11.2002 but he did not even make application immediately and took seven months time before filing the application on 16.11.2002. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, therefore, would urge that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the judgment of the civil court in O.P.No.19 of 2001. The application dated 16.11.2002 made by the President of the petitioner trust to the first respondent and the letter of the District Collector, Kurnool addressed to the Commissioner of Social Welfare are annexed to the writ petition. A reading of these two documents would show that as there was a dispute between Smt. B.Kameswaramma and the president of the petitioner trust, the matter was referred to the civil court under Section 31(2) of the Act duly depositing the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in the civil court. From this, it becomes clear that even when the matter was pending before the first respondent i.e., Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner was very much aware of the proceedings under the Act but did not seek any reference under Section 18 of the Act as well. Nothing prevented the petitioner from seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act. It was not done. Therefore, the application made by the petitioner, after disposal of O.P. under Section 31 of the Act, is clearly barred under Section 18 of the Act. The letter of the District Collector on which reliance is placed does not give any right to the petitioner to seek reference. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) January 05, 2006. YS