THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20279 of 2009 ORDER: The land of the petitioners admeasuring Acs.4.17 guntas in Survey No.37 of Katedan Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was acquired by the Government by publishing a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 12.11.1992 for expansion of the National Police Academy. Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and thereafter, an award was passed on 30.06.1995. Since there were several claims for compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to a civil Court under Section 30 of the Act and the same was taken up as O.P.No.271 of 1995 by the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Through decree, dated 19.01.2005, the trial Court held that the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation. The petitioners state that soon after the award was pronounced, they made a representation on 28.07.1995 with a request to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that they are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation. The grievance of the petitioners is that when they approached the respondents for reference under Section 18 of the Act after the civil Court passed the decree, necessary steps were not taken. They seek a direction to the respondents to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The fact that the land of the petitioners was acquired and that they were entitled to receive the compensation is not disputed. It is alleged that a representation seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act was made by the father of petitioner Nos.4 to 6 and father of petitioner No.3, and petitioner No.2. The grievance appears to be only as to petitioner Nos.1 and 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. An award was passed on 30.06.1995. Soon thereafter, the petitioners made representation on 28.07.1995 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. However, in view of the fact that the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Act, the occasion to take steps in pursuance of the representation, dated 28.07.1995, does not exist. It would have been advisable for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a comprehensive reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the Act. The reference was restricted to the one under Section 30 of the Act alone. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the representation was made on 28.07.1995 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. The dispute, if at all, is only as to whether the representation covers the case of petitioner Nos.1 and 7. Even if there was a valid request by some of the petitioners, the reference can be made under Section 18 of the Act. Further, it is not as if the avenues for such of the petitioners, who did not figure as signatories in the representation for reference, are closed. They can seek the benefit under Section 28-A of the Act. Now that the reference is yet to be made, a comprehensive reference covering the case of the petitioners can be made. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.03.2011. kdl