THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.9097 of 2007 Dated 30th June, 2011 Between: Dr.N.Laxman Rao …Petitioner And The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Ranganatha Rao Counsel for respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to refer the dispute relating to Acs.3.00 of land in Survey No.31 of Thirumalgiri, Thimmajipet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is the owner of the above-mentioned land, which was acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the Act and an award was passed, vide Award No.A/1280/91, dated 18.03.1992. The petitioner pleaded that on 09.02.1992, he has made an application for reference of dispute to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. It is his further case that as such reference was not made, he has sent a reminder on 25.05.1995. That as these efforts did not fructify, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is specifically averred that no application for reference was made after the award was passed on 18.03.1992. It is the further plea of the answering respondent that on 09.04.1992, the award amount was paid to the petitioner. It is therefore maintained in the counter affidavit that as no request within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act has been made, the petitioner is not entitled to reference of the dispute to the competent civil Court. From the facts pleaded by the petitioner, I find irreconcilable incongruity. Under Section 18 of the Act, a request for reference of any dispute, whether the same pertains to measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested, can be made by any person interested who has not accepted the award by a written application to the Collector. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the award was made on 18.03.1992. It is therefore one’s beyond comprehension that even before making such award, a request for reference of the purported dispute under Section 18 of the Act is made by the petitioner. Even assuming that such a request was made on 18.03.1992 as claimed by the petitioner, the same cannot be countenanced under law. As regards the claim of the petitioner that he had sent a reminder on 25.05.1995, a perusal of the copy of the same would show that the petitioner has stated therein that he has received compensation amount under protest on 09.02.1992, which is incorrect. When the award was passed on 18.03.1992, there is no possibility of the petitioner receiving the compensation under the award at any prior point of time. In any event, the said reminder being far beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 18 of the Act, no reference could be made on such a request. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11634 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th June, 2011 VGB