The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22384 of 2010 Date: 28-11-2011 Between: P.Nageswara Rao and others ..... Petitioners AND The Government of A.P., Energy Environment Science & Technology Dept., Rep. By its Principal Secretary and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri R.V.Chalapathi Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not referring the dispute raised by the petitioners to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), in respect of Ac.11.52 cents comprised in Survey Nos.242, 259/B1, 259A, 244/1 and 245/1 of Nelatur Village, near Krishnapatnam, Muthukur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District. I have heard Sri R.V.Chalapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents. The above-noted lands of the petitioners were acquired for construction of Krishnapatnam Thermal Power Station. Different awards were passed on 30-10-1995, under which a sum of Rs.59,000/-, has been fixed as compensation, per acre. As there was dispute relating to the persons, who are entitled to receive compensation, the same was referred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, in LAOP.Nos.100, 101 and 102 of 1995. Eventually, the Civil Court has disposed of the said LAOPs on 26-12-2008 and 23-01-2009. According to the petitioners, they have succeeded in establishing that they are the owners of the property and that they are entitled to receive the compensation. The petitioners further pleaded that they have made two applications on 25-02-2009 to respondent No.2 making a protest on the quantum of compensation and seeking reference of the dispute to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for claiming the market value of Rs.25 lakhs to one Crore per acre. The petitioners specifically pleaded that even though they have not given their consent, the award was styled as a ‘consent award’. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submitted that as the award was passed on the consent of the petitioners, they are not entitled to seek reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. She has further submitted that even otherwise, as the request for reference is barred by the limitation prescribed under Section 18 (2) of the Act, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. As regards the first submission, there is a serious dispute. In my opinion, the question, whether the impugned award is passed on the petitioners’ consent or not, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While, prima facie, the impugned award appears to be a ‘consent award’, the burden heavily lies on the petitioners to show that they have not given their consent and that the statement contained in the award that they have signed form- III and form- IV is incorrect. The adjudication of these disputed questions of fact is possible only if the dispute is raised before the Civil Court by way of a properly constituted suit, in which the evidence that may be adduced by both parties will be analyzed and appreciated by the Court for rendering conclusive findings. Such a course is not possible in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With respect to the second plea of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that the petitioners’ request for reference is barred by the limitation prescribed under Section 18 (2) of the Act, unless the Civil Court decides on the issue whether the impugned award is a ‘consent award’ or not, it may not be necessary to adjudicate on the said aspect at this stage. If it is held by the civil Court that the impugned award is not a consent award, the entire award gets vitiated. The necessity of seeking a reference would arise only if the civil Court rejects the plea of the petitioners on the nature of the award. It is only at that stage that the issue whether the petitioner’s request for reference of the dispute to civil Court is barred by limitation or not would assume relevance. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on this issue at this stage. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case and with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of the issue as to the nature of the award. The petitioners’ right for seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act would depend upon such adjudication by the civil Court. As a sequel, WPMP.No.28541 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 28th November, 2011 LUR