IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23736 of 2004 Between: P.Ravi Kumar, s/o P.Rajagopal, D.No.16/101-B Main Road, Guntakal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition H.L.C.Anantapur. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order holding that the action of the respondent is not referring the acquisition of Ac.1.12 in S.No.98-A2 of Timmapuram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent Civil Court, as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and opposed to Art.300-A of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondent to refer the matter to the Court under Sec.18 of the land acquisition Act to fix the market value compensation Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SOMA KONDA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23736 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in referring the dispute in respect of Ac.1.12 cents in Sy.No.98-A2 of Timmapuram Village, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) to the competent Civil Court, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that the respondent passed Award bearing No.3/2000 on 14.02.2000, and on the same day, the petitioner received the compensation of Rs.53,267/- under protest, by noting the said protest on the acquittance sheet. As no reference was made under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner got issued a legal notice, dated 12.07.2002, for which there was no reply. 3. No counter affidavit is filed. 4. From the facts noted above, it is quite evident that the petitioner received notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act, and as also the compensation under protest. However, the petitioner has not pleaded that, while registering protest, he made a request for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Even according to the petitioner, he got legal notice issued only on 12.07.2002, by which time, admittedly, limitation for seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act expired. 5. Sri K.Soma Konda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly stated that though the petitioner has not made an express request for reference while receiving the compensation under protest on 14.02.2000, the very fact that he registered his protest implies that such a request is made for reference. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Peace Memorial Association, Anantapur, by its Secretary P.Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Collector, Anantapur and another[1]. The learned counsel, in particular, relied on the following observations of the Court:- “In his request which he made by an endorsement on the receipt, it is stated that he received the amount under protest, which necessarily implies that he was not satisﬁed with the quantum of compensation ﬁxed by the Acquisition Oﬃcer and it is only for that purpose that he wanted the reference to be made.” 6. The above reproduced observations were made in the light of the fact that the claimant therein received the compensation through cheque on 16.11.1960 under protest and with endorsement “the dispute may kindly be referred to the Court of law.” In the light of those facts, the learned Judge held that it is enough if the written application discloses the ground which the claimant wants to agitate before the Civil Court and it is not necessary under Section 18 of the Act for the land owner to give details of the grounds on the basis of which he wants the Collector to make a reference. 7. In my considered view, the said judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner and is of no avail to him. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make a written request for reference, which is a Sine qua non for seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. In fairness to the petitioner and his counsel, they have not pleaded that a request was made within the prescribed time for seeking reference of the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As the petitioner failed to make a request within the prescribed time, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 25.08.2008 v v [1] AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 264