IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos:16766 and 16768 of 2003 WRIT PETITION NO : 16766 of 2003 Between: 1 Lanka Sudershan Sharama S/o. Late Seshachalapathi R/o Plot No. 20, Subramanayam Nagar, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. K. Pramila Devi, W/o .K.S. Reddy, R/o. 456, Special Type-A Block, Aghapura, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. K. Pramila Devi in the capacity of Sucessor in the interest of her Late Mother, Smt. N. Seeta Devi vide Legal Heir Certificate No.11704/92 dt.29-7-92, R/o. 456, Special Type-A, Block, Aghapura, Hyderabad. 4 Lakshmaiah(died) as per L.Rs. Mohan, S/o.late Lakshmaiah, [All the petts.No.1-4 are rep.by their GPA.Holder vide doc.NO.1070/92dt.20.8.92 Anil Venkat Epur,S/o.E.V.Ram Reddy,R/o. H.No.8-2- 703/7/A,Road No12,Banjara Hills ..... PETITIONERS AND The Land Acquisition Officer [FAC], Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, at Hyderabad, Paigah Palace, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION WRIT PETITION NO : 16768 of 2003 Between: 1 K.Venkata Subba reddy GPA M.Rahul Dev R/o. Flat No.22, Bukingham Amrutha Valley Road No.12, Banjara Hills Hyderabad 2 Devad Venkata Subba Reddy (died) (since died as per LR's 6 to 9) 3 C.Sivad Reddy GPA M. Rahul Dev Flat No.103, Pentagon Extn., Amrutha valley, Road No.12 banjara Hills, Hyderabad 4 G. Balasubramanyam Reddy S/o Mar Reddy R/o. H.No.9-161, HMT Nagar, nacharam Hyderabad 5 G.Ram Subramanyam Reddy S/o Mar Reddy R/o. Moulali, Hyderabad. 6 Seethamma W/o Late D.V.Subba Reddy R/o. H.No.8-2-293/564/A25, Road No.12 Extn., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 7 D.P. Reddy S/o Late DVS Reddy r/o. H.No./8-2-401/C, Prithvi Nivas Road No.5, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 8 Sreenath Reddy S/o Late DVS Reddy r/o. H.No./8-2-401/C, Prithvi Nivas Road No.5, Banjara Hills Hyderabad. 9 Sridhar Reddy S/o Late D.V.Subba Reddy R/o. H.No.8-2-293/564/A25, Road No.12 Extn., Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Land Acquisition Officer (FAC) Hyderabad Urban Development Ajthority, at Hyderabad, Paigah Palace, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: The issues raised in both the writ petitions being common, they are heard and being disposed of together. The lands of the petitioners were acquired under Award No.12 of 1986, dated 22.09.1986. As there were disputes regarding right to receive compensation, they were referred to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and registered as O.P.Nos.20, 22 and 24 of 1995 on the ﬁle of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy (for short ‘the Civil Court’). The petitioners ﬁled claim petitions before the Civil Court on 27.02.1998. By award and decree, dated 19.11.2001, the Civil Court disposed of the said O.P.s in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that as they were not served with notices under Section 12(2) of the Act, they could not ﬁle their applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act within the time limit stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act and that they made their applications on 21.05.2002, which according to the petitioners were within the time limit of six months prescribed under the Act. At the hearing, Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners received the notices under Section 12(2) of the Act, they were entitled to make an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act within a period of six (6) months from the date of knowledge of the award as envisaged in proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act. Prior to Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment) Act, 1959, proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act reads as under: “in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub- section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall ﬁrst expire.” By the above-mentioned amendment, the said provision has been amended in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh and was substituted with the following provision: “in other cases, within two months from the date or service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 sub-section (2).” The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment Act did not completely substitute the pre-existing provision, but it has partially substituted the said provision. The learned counsel further submitted that the words “within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall ﬁrst expire” being beneﬁcial to the landowners would not have been obliterated by the legislature in the name of substitution of the provision. I n Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Collieries Company Limited v. Dasari Ramulu and others [1], the Full Bench of this Court categorically held as under: “In view of A.P. State amendment to Section 18(2)(b) of the Act and the state substituting the provision for Section 18(2)(b) it is categorically discernible that the limitation of six months from the date of the award as well as six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice of the award from the Collector provided under Section 18(2)(b) stood obliterated and substituted the period of six months from the date of Collector’s award by two months from the date of service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2). Thus, the quint essential that emerges from a reading of Section 18(2)(b) for seeking a reference is (1) that the period of limitation for seeking the reference is two months and neither six weeks nor six months as envisaged by Section 28(2) proviso (a) and (b); (2) the limitation would commence from the date of the service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2); (3) the Collector would serve the notice of the award and would, not only give notice of the award i.e., service of the notice by the Collector of his award it is statutorily incumbent before the limitation commences depriving the claimant of his remedy of seeking a reference.” The above-reproduced paragraph is a complete answer to the submission of the learned counsel and by the amendment, there is a total substitution of the provision. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and another[2] to bring home his contention that the landowner shall have the knowledge of award and that limitation starts from the date of such knowledge. There cannot be any quarrel about this proposition. Indeed, the Full Bench (supra) while holding that the burden of alleging and proving of the service of notice is on the State when the State intends to take advantage of contending that the application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation, it further held that it is for the State to show the date on which the claimant acquired actually or constructively the knowledge of the award from which the period of limitation would commence. In the instant cases, it is not in dispute that though notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were not served on the petitioners, they had knowledge of the award and its contents at least on 19.11.2001 when the Civil Court disposed of the O.Ps referred under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. Following the ratio laid down by the above- mentioned judgments of the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court, it is deemed that the petitioners had knowledge of the award on that day and limitation commenced there from. As a result of the amendment of proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, the petitioners ought to have ﬁled their applications on or before 19.01.2002. Admittedly, the petitioners ﬁled their applications on 21.05.2002, which is beyond the time limit stipulated in the above-mentioned provision. In view of the same, both the writ petitions are liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th AUGUST, 2008. kvni [1] 2000(2) ALD 418 (FB) [2] AIR 1963 SC 1604