IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24327 of 2003 Between: Sudha Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Sankaranarayana Counsel for the respondent : AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24327 of 2003 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to refer the dispute relating to fixation of compensation in respect of the petitioner’s land under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the civil Court. The petitioner was the owner of Ac.0.20 ½ guntas of land along with building in block No.1, ward No.5 in Sy.No.201 of Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam District. The said property was acquired by notification published on 16th and 17th December, 2000. Award dated 22.05.2002 was passed. On the ground that the petitioner’s request for reference of dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act has not been heeded to, the present writ petition is filed. At the hearing, Sri K. Sankaranarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received Section 12 (2) notice on 05.06.2002. He, however, submitted that within the stipulated time of two months therefrom, a request was made by the petitioner to refer the dispute to civil Court, but the respondent has not acted on the said request. He invited my attention to petition dated 05.07.2003 said to have been filed by the petitioner’s counsel before the respondent, wherein a request for reference of dispute was made. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the petitioner did not raise a whisper about any request made by him for reference of the dispute. Even a perusal of petition dated 05.07.2003 shows that at its bottom it is stated “one copy to be handed over in person to avoid delay by the advocate”. The petitioner failed to produce any material to support the plea of his counsel that prior to 05.07.2003 he had either sent any notice through post or handed over the same through person to the respondent on or before 05.08.2002, the last date on which such a request ought to be made in order to be within the time limit prescribed under proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act. Since the petitioner failed to show that he made a request within the said time, he is not entitled for seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2008 ES