IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24572 of 2008 Between: Uppla Appa Rao, S/o. Pullayya, Indian, Male, R/o. Gurvaigudem, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Unit No.4, Jangareddy Gudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition 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 direct the respondent authority to dispose of our representations dated 16-7-98 and 31-12-2002 with regard to the reference may be made to the civil court U/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act as directed by this Hon'ble Court in WP NO. 15300/2003, dt. 28-07-2003 by ﬁxing one month time to dispose of my representations by way of issuing a writ or an order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent authority in not disposing the representation is illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:VINJAMURI RANGA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The land of the petitioner was acquired by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). An award was passed on 17.05.1985, ﬁxing the market value of the land at Rs.4,007/-, per acre. Since there was some dispute as to the entitlement to receive the compensation, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The same was taken up as O.P.Nos.46 and 47 of 1988 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Eluru. A decree was passed on 21.08.1996, wherein it was held that the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation. The petitioner got issued a notice, dated 16.07.1998, with a request to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. Alleging that the notice was not acted upon, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.15300 of 2003. It was disposed of on 28.07.2003, with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. This Writ Petition is ﬁled alleging that the respondents have not acted either upon the notice, dated 16.07.1998, or upon the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.15300 of 2003. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The limited grievance of the petitioner, be it in the present Writ Petition or in W.P.No.15300 of 2003 or in the notice, dated 16.07.1998; is in the context of referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act. It is a matter of record that the land of the petitioner was acquired and award was passed on 17.05.1985. Reference came to be made under Section 30 of the Act in O.P.Nos.46 and 47 of 1988 and the same was answered in favour of the petitioner on 21.08.1996. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, or the decree passed by the Court in a reference under Section 30 of the Act, stands on the same footing, in the context of seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. The application for such a reference must be made within two months from the date of the award, or the decree, as the case may be. Receiving the amount under protest is another requirement. Through catena of decisions, it was held that there was no need of any speciﬁc written protest and mere filing of application seeking reference in a way would constitute protest. Therefore, the principal requirement is that an application seeking reference must be made within two months from the date of the award, or the decree, as the case may be. Admittedly, the ﬁrst attempt made by the petitioner, in this regard, is only on 16.07.1998, which is nearly two years from the date of the decree passed by the Court. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Dt.19.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ