IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11166 of 2004 Between: 1 Dumpa Rami Reddy, s/o Ramachandra Reddy, R/o New Dachur Village, Kaluvoi Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Dumpa Kodanda Rami Reddy, s/o Rami Reddy, R/o New Dachur Village, Kaluvoi Mandal, Nellore District. 3 Rajula Narasa Reddy, s/o Chinnapenchala Reddy, R/o New Dachur Village, Kaluvoi Mandal, Nellore District. 4 Nelaturi Sampurnamma, w/o Sreenivasulu Reddy, R/o New Dachur Village, Kaluvoi Mandal, Nellore District. 5 Yenamala Venkamma, w/o Peda Venkata Subba Reddy, R/o New Dachur Village, Kaluvoi Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Telugu Ganga Project, Rapur at Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to refer the applications ﬁled by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to the competent Civil Court. Heard Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent. In respect of the lands of the petitioners acquired by the respondent, he passed award No.40/89-90 dated 21-01-1990. Under proviso (a) to Section 18(2) of the Act, a person who has not accepted the award of the Collector is entitled to seek reference of the dispute within six weeks from the date of the award if the same was passed in his presence. Accordingly, the petitioners ought to have ﬁled their applications on or before 03-03-1990. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioners averred that the award was passed on 25-01-1990. However, in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent, it is speciﬁcally averred that award No.40/89-90 was passed on 21-01-1990 and that the entries made in the register show that the petitioners were present at the time of pronouncement of the award in the open Court by the respondent on 21-01-1990. It is also stated in the counter- affidavit that when applications dated 08-03-1990 and 14-03-1990 ﬁled by the petitioners were rejected by the respondent, the petitioners approached the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Gudur, by way of Pre-litigation Case No.27 of 2005 and in pursuance of order dated 26-11-2005, passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Gudur, the respondent veriﬁed the registers and found that the applications ﬁled on 08-03-1990 and 14-03-1990 were beyond the time limit of six weeks from the date of the award. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if the petitioners were present at the time of passing of the award, there would have been no necessity to serve notices under Section 12(2) of the Act and that since the petitioners received such notices, it is deemed that they were not present at the time of passing of the award and therefore limitation of two months, as per proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, starts running from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act. The petitioners failed to plead that either they were not present at the time of the passing of the award or that they received notices under Section 12(2) of the Act. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the above mentioned contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Under proviso (a) to Section 18(2) of the Act, limitation for making an application by a person in whose presence the award was passed is six weeks from the date of the award. As the assertion of the respondent contained in the counter-aﬃdavit remained uncontroverted, the Court has no option other than holding that the petitioners were present at the time of passing of the award. Admittedly, the applications ﬁled by the petitioners on 08-03-1990 and 14-03-1990 are beyond six weeks from the date of the award. Hence, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the action of the respondent in not referring the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.14175 of 2004 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th August, 2008 vrn