HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13934 of 2009 Date : 02.12.2011 Between : Palakurthi Rama Krishna Rao. …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by the District Collector, Krishna District & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13934 of 2009 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the proceedings, dated …05.2009, issued in R.C.No.940/92, signed by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer on 02.06.2009, returning the application of the petitioner ﬁled under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner in the capacity of the President of Palakurthi Vari Choultry. It is stated that the said Choultry owned and possessed an extent of Ac.6.31 cents of land covered by Sy.Nos.167/3, 170/5, 171/1 and 172/1 of Machilipatnam town, and the said land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated that notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 20.05.1992 and declaration under Section 6 was published on 04.10.1992. After issuing notices under Sections 9(1) and 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, when the respondents have failed to pass Award under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, earlier, the Choultry has ﬁled a writ petition in W.P.No.14778 of 2001 and the same was disposed of, directing the respondents to pass award under the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant to the said orders, after conducting necessary inquiry, Award was passed on 11.05.2007 vide Award No.10/2007, determining the compensation payable at Rs.14,12,605/- for the acquired land to an extent of Ac.5.39 cents. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after passing of Award, the copy was not furnished to him, and that a representation was ﬁled by him on 13.06.2007, and after serving the copy of Award on 26.11.2007, further representation was made on 06.12.2007, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and inspite of the same, matter has not been referred. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Bandar, has ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. In the counter, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that pursuant to the directions of this Court in earlier writ petition, Award was passed on 11.05.2007 and the petitioner has received the compensation, which was paid by way of Demand Draft on 10.06.2007, without any protest. Thereafter, it is stated that on the application ﬁled by the petitioner, further Award copy was served on 26.11.2007 but he ﬁled the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, only on 06.04.2009, and as the same was barred by limitation, it was returned on 02.06.2009. Even according to the petitioner, the Award was passed on 11.05.2007 and the same was served on him on 26.11.2007. At the stage of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that immediately after passing of award, the copy of the award was served, but on the application ﬁled by the petitioner, a further copy was served on 11.06.2007, inspite of the same, he has not ﬁled the application within the speciﬁed period and the only application ﬁled was on 06.04.2009, which is barred by limitation, as such, the impugned order is passed rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. When the matter was listed on last occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to ascertain as to whether any representation, alleged to have been made by the petitioner on 13.06.2007, is available on record. When the matter is taken up today, record is produced by the learned Government Pleader, but no such representation is available in the record. Except the said application, dated 06.04.2009, there is no other representation ﬁled by the petitioner seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not in dispute that in this case Award was passed on 11.05.2007, and the petitioner received compensation on 10.06.2007, which was paid by way of Demand Draft, and inspite of the same, he has not taken any steps for seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Though the petitioner alleges to have made several representations seeking reference, except the representation, dated 06.04.2009, no other representation is available in the record. In that view of the matter, the application ﬁled by the petitioner is ex facie time barred, and hence, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in issuing the impugned proceedings, rejecting the said application. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any ground for grant of relief as prayed for in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd December 2011 ajr