IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.24228 of 2001 Between: Eslavath Tirupal Naik and 59 others. … Petitioners And Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Pengonda Mandal, Anantapur District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.V.Suresh. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in referring the petitioners’ applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to the competent civil Court in terms of proceedings dated 14-4-2001 of respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for construction of the Irrigation Project, called Yogi Vemana Reservoir Project. Out of the 60 petitioners, the lands of 16 petitioners were private patta lands, which were acquired for the said purpose. As far as the remaining 44 petitioners are concerned, the lands, which were assigned to them, were also acquired for the said project. The petitioners pleaded for reference of the dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1 it is, inter alia, stated that since the lands of 16 out of 60 petitioners were covered by three awards, viz., Award Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2000-01 dated 27-10-2000 (wrongly shown as 27-10- 2001), 16-10-2000 and 17-10-2000 respectively, notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were served on all the 16 petitioners. It is further averred that the said notices were served on 25- 12-2000, 24-11-2000 and 24-11-2000 respectively, and their applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act were received through their counsel on 12-2-2001 and that, therefore, they are barred by limitation. As no speciﬁc reference to each of the petitioners, with regard to the date on which the notices were served on them, was made in the counter-aﬃdavit, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was directed to produce the record. Accordingly, she produced the record today. As per the record, for petitioner Nos.1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38 and 55, whose lands were covered by Award No.5/2000- 01 dated 27-10-2000, notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were served on them on 25-12- 2000. With respect to petitioner No.56, whose land is covered by Award No.7/2000-01 dated 17- 10-2000 and petitioner No.57, whose land is covered by Award No.6/2000-01 dated 16-10- 2000, notices were served on 24-11-2000. All 16 petitioners filed their applications on 12-2-2001. Under Proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, where the land owner was not present at the time of passing of the Award, he is entitled to make an application for reference under Section 18 within two months from the date of service of Section 12(2) notice. Applying the said provision, I ﬁnd that the applications of 14 persons mentioned above and covered by Award No.5/2000-01 dated 27-10-2000 were within time as they received Section 12(2) notices on 25-12- 2000 and ﬁled their applications on 12-2-2001, which is within the period of two months from the date of receipt of Section 12(2) notices. With regard to petitioner Nos.56 and 57, as Section 12(2) notices were received by them on 24-11-2000, their applications dated 12-2- 2001 were beyond two months. Hence, they are barred by limitation. As for the remaining 44 petitioners, since, admittedly, the lands acquired from them were assigned lands, they are not entitled to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, this order does not preclude them from claiming compensation, which they are entitled to receive in accordance with law before appropriate forum. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to refer the applications of petitioner Nos.1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38 and 55 to the competent civil Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 29-9-2008 MNR