IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:22029 of 2004 Between: Kommaddi Ramudu, S/o Yerikalappa, R/o Doruvapalli (V), Bukkapatnam (Post),Kondapuram (M), Cuddapah District - 516 474. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2 The Special Deputy Collector ( LA), Pulivendala Branch Canals, Now at Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NAGARAJU NAGURU Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refer the petitioner’s claim to the competent Civil Court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner stated that respondent No.2 passed award No.G647/88(1/96), dated 23.11.1996; that respondent No.2 did not make payment within the reasonable time and that respondent No.1 made an endorsement on 25.01.2003 to the eﬀect that the compensation amount was kept in Civil Court deposit in view of the dispute referred under Section 30 of the Act. The petitioner further stated that the said reference was not accepted by the Civil Court as respondent No.2 failed to deposit the compensation amount under the award and that later, the dispute was settled out of Court before the Lok Adalath at Proddatur on his application ﬁled before the said Forum. The petitioner claimed that consequent on settlement of the dispute, he received compensation amount under protest reserving his right for enhanced compensation and with a request to refer the dispute to Civil Court for determination of correct market value. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the award, under which, the petitioner’s land was acquired, was passed on 12.06.2002; that though the case was referred initially to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur under Section 30 of the Act, in view of dishonouring of the cheque relating to compensation amount, reference was not accepted by the Civil Court and that the petitioner approached the Lok Adalath, Proddatur, which by it’s proceedings, dated 21.04.2003 recorded compromise. It is further stated that all the parties including the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 on 27.02.2004 and made their statements on the basis of which compensation was paid to the petitioner on the same day. Respondent No.2 denied the averment of the petitioner that he received the compensation amount under protest on 17.04.2004. Under proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, if the landowner was not present at the time of passing of award, he is entitled to seek reference of the dispute within two (2) months from the date of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. The Full Bench of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani v. Dasari Ramulu[1] held that the limitation starts running either from the date of receipt of actual notice or constructive notice on the part of the landowner. In the instant case, award was passed on 12.06.2002. As the respondents did not aver that the petitioner was served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the limitation starts running from the date of constructive notice to the petitioner. The petitioner himself pleaded that he approached the Lok Adalath at Proddatur and during the pendency of the said proceedings, he entered into an out of Court settlement. In the counter-aﬃdavit, respondent No.2 specifically pleaded that the petitioner approached Lok Adalath, Proddatur on 21.04.2003. Ten days later, the petitioner received the amount of compensation. Inasmuch as the petitioner had constructive notice of the award at least when he approached the Lok Adalath, Proddatur on 21.04.2003, he should have ﬁled his application for reference within two months thereafter. Admittedly, he has not ﬁled his application till April, 2004. Therefore, the petitioner’s application for reference under Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th AUGUST, 2008. kvni [1] 2000 (2) ALT 83 = 2000(2) ALD 418