IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.2367 of 2008 Between: Pampana Rama Murty and six others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not referring the dispute to a competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners pleaded that an extent of Ac.11-35 cents in Survey No.239/2, belonging to the petitioners, was acquired and Award No.2 of 1987 was passed on 18-2- 1987. The said acquisition was made for a Company, called Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited. The petitioners received compensation under protest and sought for reference to Civil Court. The petitioners plead that the respondents referred the dispute to Civil Court to the extent of 17,889.5 Sq. yards, but they failed to refer the dispute in respect of the remaining extent of 8,760.4 Sq. yards; that the Civil Court enhanced compensation in respect of the said extent of 17,889.5 Sq. yards; and that A.S.No.906 of 1999 filed by the petitioners for enhanced compensation was partly allowed and compensation was enhanced to Rs.82,600/- per acre. It is averred that the petitioners issued notice dated 31-7-2005 to respondent No.2 to refer the dispute relating to the balance extent of 8,760.4 Sq. yards to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the said notice, respondent No.2 did not refer the dispute to the Civil Court. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition. Under Section 18 of the Act, any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whim it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Under the said provision, such application shall be filed within six weeks from the date of the Award of the Collector, if the same is made in the presence of the person; and in other cases within two months from the date of service of notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act. Even according to the petitioners, they made a request for reference of dispute to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act on receipt of award notice and, accordingly, their request was accepted and the dispute was referred to the Civil Court. If the petitioners were not satisfied with the reference with regard to the area of the land acquired, they should have raised the said dispute before the Civil Court when the reference under Section 18 was pending. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that at any point of time, when the proceedings before the Civil Court initiated under Section 18 of the Act were pending, they raised any such dispute. The petitioners have not even indicated the dates on which the Civil Court passed the Award and this Court disposed of the appeals. They kept quiet for a number of years and claimed to have made their representation only in the year 2005. More than 2 ½ years later, they filed this Writ Petition. Having carefully considered the facts of the case, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds, viz., (i) that the petitioners failed to raise the dispute regarding the extent of land for which reference was made before the Civil Court when Section 18 reference was pending; (ii) on the ground of laches; and (iii) that the petitioners’ request at this belated stage is woefully barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 28-2-2008 MNR