THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2150 of 2006 DATED: 15.03.2010 Between: K. Kishore Kumar .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others .. Respondents ORDER: Questioning the endorsement dated 30.11.2004, issued by the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, G.Kondur, Krishna District, the present writ petition is filed. Petitioner states that the land belonging to him, admeasuring Ac.7.00 in R.S.No.38/2 of Ganginenipalem Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), along with other lands, and compensation was paid under award dated 11.02.1987, which was received by him under protest. He further states that his application to refer the matter to Civil Court, for the purpose of adjudication with regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 18 (1) of the Act, has not been acted upon, while the similar applications of other land owners, covered under the same notification, have been acted upon and the Reference Court, after due enquiry, enhanced the amount of compensation awarded to them, vide judgment dated 05.07.2002. Thereupon, the petitioner made an application to the respondents, on 14.09.2002, under Section 28-A of the Act, requesting them to re-determine the amount of compensation, which was received by him under protest, on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court to those similarly situated claimants. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he made the said application under Section 28-A of the Act within the stipulated time i.e. within three months from the date of award of the Reference Court, the same has not been acted upon by the respondents and, after his repeated representations, the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, G. Konduru Mandal, issued the impugned endorsement dated 30.11.2004 rejecting his application on the ground that the same is not filed within three months from the date of award of the Reference Court, which is arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner, under Section 18 (1) of the Act, seeking to refer the matter to Civil Court for the purpose of adjudication with regard to quantum of compensation, was referred to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nuzvid, but the same was returned with certain objections. Thereafter, the said application was misplaced and could be traced in the year 2006 and thereupon it was resubmitted to the Civil Court, duly complying with the objections raised. It is further stated that the said application is still pending and, hence, the petitioner cannot seek relief under Section 28-A of the Act. Reiterating the aforesaid averments made in the counter- affidavit, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents has also placed before this Court the fax message received by him on 07.03.2010 from the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar, G. Konduru, stating that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 (1) of the Act, which was referred to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nuzvid, and numbered as O.P.No.18 of 2006, is still pending at the stage of arguments. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and perused the record. From the averments made in the counter-affidavit referred above and the written instructions received by the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, it is clear that the petitioner, after receiving compensation for acquisition of his lands, under protest, filed application, seeking to refer the matter to Civil Court for the purpose of adjudication with regard to the quantum of compensation, under Section 18 (1) of the Act, and the said application was referred to the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nuzvid, and numbered as O.P.No.18 of 2006 and it is still pending at the stage of arguments. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner can very well pursue the said O.P. and take all the pleas, as available to him under law, in the said O.P. and no further orders need be passed in the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. No order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 15th March, 2010 IBL