HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.717 OF 2003 DATE: 20.10.2010 Between: The Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District. …… Appellant. And: Balreddy …..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.717 OF 2003 JUDGMENT:(per Honourable Sri Justice Samudrala Govindarajulu) 1. The respondent/writ petitioner sought Mandamus in Writ Petition No.15602 of 1992 before the learned Single Judge directing the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District/appellant herein to refer the matter to civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, the Act) relating to Ac.5.00 of land in S.No.24 of Allapur village of Marpally Mandal. The learned Single Judge by order dated 18.03.2003 allowed the writ petition directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to civil court under Section 18 of the Act within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Questioning the said order, the Land Acquisition Officer filed this appeal. 2. There is no dispute that land of Ac.5.00 in S.No.24 of Allapur village was acquired as it was liable for submersion under ‘Gundam Cheruvu’ and that notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the year 1983 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the year 1985 and that the appellant passed award on 16.08.1988 fixing market value of the said land at Rs.1,200/- per acre. The appellant referred the matter to civil court under Section 30 of the Act for deciding as to who is entitled to receive compensation for that land. In O.P No.56 of 1988, the civil court viz., the Subordinate Judge, Vikarabad by order dated 10.10.1990 determined that the respondent/writ petitioner was entitled for compensation for the land acquired. 3. The disputed fact is regarding filing of representation/application by the respondent/writ petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer for making reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil court claiming enhanced rate of compensation. According to the writ petitioner, he made an application on 07.09.1988 to the Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer filed counter-affidavit in the writ petition disputing the said fact. It is specifically denied in the counter to the effect that averment of the writ petitioner about he filing a petition under Section 18 of the Act on 07.09.1988 is incorrect and false and that he had verified the entire record and there was no such petition under Section 18 of the Act as alleged by the petitioner. 4. There is no dispute between the writ petitioner and the Land Acquisition Officer that subsequent to disposal of O.P.No.56 of 1988 by the civil court, the writ petitioner filed two applications dated 27.10.1990 and 23.11.1992 to the Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil court and that those two applications were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer by way of two memos dated 12.06.1991 and 30.11.1992 respectively on the ground that those applications were filed by the writ petitioner beyond the time provided under Section 18(2) of the Act. Thereupon, the writ petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.15602 of 1992. During hearing of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge in the year 2003, it is noted by the learned Single Judge in his order that the counsel for the writ petitioner produced copy of application dated 07.09.1988 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, which bears seal of the Land Acquisition Officer’s office showing receipt of such application on that day by that office. 5. The said application dated 07.09.1988 of the writ petitioner bearing seal of office of the Land Acquisition Officer of the even date does not form part of the record in the writ petition. Not even Photostat copy of the said application with seal of the Land Acquisition Officer is filed along with the writ petition. In the petition filed by the writ petition on 26.10.1990, there is no reference to any earlier application dated 07.09.1988 for the same purpose. In the application dated 26.10.1990, the petitioner sought for reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act by tracing out the earlier proceedings upto date of decision of the civil court in O.P.No.56 of 1988 under Section 30 of the Act on 10.10.1990. Filing of any application on 07.09.1988 by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act, is conspicuously absent in the application under Section 18 of the Act filed on 26.10.1990. If really the writ petitioner made any application on 07.09.1988, he would not have failed to refer the same in his latter application dated 26.10.1990. It is evident that the writ petitioner thought that he could file application under Section18 of the Act after he was declared as the person entitled to receive the compensation by the civil court in O.P.No.56 of 1988 on 10.10.1990. There is no foundation in the application dated 26.10.1990 to the effect that an earlier application dated 07.09.1988 was filed under Section 18 of the Act for the same purpose by the writ petitioner. No doubt, in the second application dated 21.11.1992 filed by the writ petitioner after rejection of his earlier application dated 26.10.1990 by memo dated 12.06.1991, for the first time contains averment to the effect that the writ petitioner filed two similar applications earlier on 07.09.1988 and 27.10.1990. The said second application dated 23.11.1992 was also rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge should not have placed reliance on a copy of the application dated 07.09.1988 containing seal of the appellant’s office, which was shown (not filed) to the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ petition in the year 2003 for the first time. The writ petitioner did not file any reply affidavit in the writ petition when the Land Acquisition Officer filed counter affidavit to the effect that filing of application dated 07.09.1988 for reference under Section 18 of the Act was false and incorrect, disputing the said averment of the Land Acquisition Officer. Neither the writ petitioner filed any reply affidavit nor filed office copy of application dated 07.09.1988 with seal of the Land Acquisition Officer denoting receipt of the same by his office, along with the writ petition. It is not the writ petitioner’s case that the said office copy of application dated 07.09.1988 with seal of the Land Acquisition Officer, contained any inward number/receive register number and initials of the staff member in the appellant’s office who received the same. In the absence of any inward number and initials of the staff member who received the paper, no reliance can be placed on mere showing of a paper containing seal of the office, particularly when filing of such application dated 07.09.1988 was not disclosed by the petitioner in his application dated 26.10.1990 and when he averred the said allegation for the first time in the application dated 21.11.1992 filed before the Land Acquisition Officer just prior to filing of the writ petition in this Court. 7. Further, the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner is not maintainable as against the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer alone in the absence of compliance of Article 300 of the Constitution of India and Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure for not impleading the State as party. 8. Hence, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside order dated 18.03.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15602 of 1992. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:20.10.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No.717 OF 2003 DATE:20.10.2010 Gk.