IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23097 of 2004 Between: Kalluru Padamanabhaiah S/o.late K.Srinivasulu Chetty Srinivasamangapuram, Chandragiri (M), Chittoor Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acquisition Officer- Spl Dy Collector Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati. .....RESPONDENT Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein in not referring the petitioner's case of land acquisition, under section 18 of the L.A. Act, to the Civil Court along with the respondents in OP No.5/2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, and consequently be pleased to direct the respondent to refer the petitioner's land acquisition case to Civil Court for consideration by it, for enhancement of compensation and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RUSHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court at the stage of admission made the following order : ORDER: The land of the petitioner, in various survey numbers, admeasuring 95 cents, was acquired through notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), on 05-01-1997, for the benefit of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. Award was passed on 31-01-1990. Not being satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14-03-1990, seeking reference to the civil Court, under Section 18 of the Act. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to, on the ground that the Court fee of Rs.2/-, was not affixed on it. The petitioner contends that the inaction of the respondent in referring the matter, is opposed to law and cannot be sustained. It is contended that the persons, whose land was also acquired through the same notification have filed W.P.No.7945 of 1992 before this Court and obtained orders, and that on account of lack of proper legal advise and financial constraints, the petitioner herein could not approach this Court in time. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired, and an award was passed on 31-01-1990. He submitted a representation, dated 14-03-1990, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. The endorsement made by the Land Acquisition Officer reads as under: “Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, S/o.K.Sreenivasulu Chetty, of Awardee in Award No.11/89-90 dated 31-1-90 is hereby informed that his application could not be considered for making reference u/s.18 of the L.A. Act to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation for the reasons enumerated hereunder. (1). Court fee lable of Rs.2/- was not affixed to the application as required under the provisions of sections 4(ii) and 69 and Schedule II item 10(i) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.” On the face of it, the stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer, is unsustainable in law. What is material under the provisions of the Act, is a request, within the stipulated time, and receipt of the compensation under protest. Affixture of stamp is not at all a requirement under law. It is true that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. However, taking into account the spirit of Section 28-A of the Act, this Court is of the view that, no prejudice, as such, can be said to have been caused to the respondent. W.P.No.7945 of 1992, filed by the owner of the land, which was acquired under the same notification, was allowed by this Court, and a direction was given to the respondent, to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Hence, this writ petition is also allowed, directing the respondent to refer the matter to the civil Court, under Section 18 of the Act, within six weeks from today. In view of the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for the benefits, such as interest, for a period of eight years, on the amount of compensation that may be enhanced by the civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-12-2004 KO To 1. The Land Acquisition Officer- Special Deputy Collector, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati. 2. 2 CCs to G.P. for Land Acquisition, High Court of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. 2 C.D. copies.