IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11123 of 2004 Between: Kishan Rao … Petitioner AND Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M. Jayaram Reddy for Sri V. Ravinder Rao Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11123 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare endorsement dated 14.01.2004 of the respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to refer the dispute to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). The facts, which are not in dispute in this case, are that Award under Section 11(1) of the Act was passed on 06.02.1998. Since there was a dispute regarding the persons, who are entitled to receive compensation, the same was referred to the competent Civil Court on 04.11.1998. On 03.12.1998, the petitioner sent his representation for referring the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and no action was taken thereon. O.P.No.34 of 1998 referred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act was disposed of on 08.01.2003. The petitioner again made a representation on 03.03.2003 for reference. Under proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, a person, who is not present at the time of passing of the award, is entitled to seek reference of the dispute to the Civil Court, within two months of his receiving notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act. It is not in dispute that no notice under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioner. I n Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., Godavarikhani vs. Dasari Ramulu and others[1] the Full Bench of this Court held that the burden lies on the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer to plead and prove that the land owner had either actual or constructive notice of the award for the commencement of limitation of two months. In the instant case, notice under Section 12(2) of the Act has not been sent to the petitioner. Therefore, the burden is on the respondents to show that the petitioner had knowledge of passing of the award two months prior to 03.12.1998, the date on which the petitioner sent his representation for referring the dispute to the Civil Court. The respondent has not produced any material in this regard. Therefore, even though the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer on 06.02.1998, in the absence of receipt of notice by the petitioner under Section 12 (2) and any material produced by the respondent to show that the petitioner had constructive notice, the application made by the petitioner on 03.12.1998 cannot be said to be beyond the time limit prescribed under proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.14132 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.08.2008 ES [1] 2000 (2) ALD 418