IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 11932 of 2001 Between: 1. U.Lakshmi Devi, W/o.Late Rama Rao, R/o.D.No.20-117, Lanka Veedi, Vizianagaram District. 2. P.Lakshmi, W/o.Apparao, R/o.H.No.20-117, Lanka Veedi, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings Rc.No.1337/96/P, dt:27.5.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Section 18 of the Land Acquistion Act and to set aside the same and issue consequential direction to the respondent authorities to refer thepetitioners objection petitioner dt:12.9.1997 to the competent Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquistion Act and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.1337/96/P, dated 27-05-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Vizianagaram District, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and to set aside the same by issuing consequential direction to the respondent authorities to refer the petitioners’ objection petition dated 12-09-1997 to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The case of the petitioners, as stated in the affidavit, is that the land to an extent of Acs.12.04 cents in Survey No.13/1 & 2 situated in bit No.II(v) belonging to the petitioners and another has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections and the same was acquired through the Award No.39/95-96 dated 05-06-1997. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.9,70,604/- was paid to the petitioners and another person towards compensation and the same was received by them under protest seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is also submitted that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 09-09-1997 and on receipt of the same, the petitioners have filed an application on 12-09-1997 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act but the respondent authorities have failed to refer the matter to the competent civil Court. Thereupon, the petitioners have made several representations to the respondent authorities and finally the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings in Rc.No.1337/96/P, dated 27-05-2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for referring the matter to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer did not put his initial in the last column of the code Form-CC, hence the matter was not referred. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though they have made an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking the matter to be referred to the competent civil Court for enhancement of the compensation that was received by them under protest, the respondent authorities have failed to do the same on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer did not put his initial. The contention of the petitioners is that merely because the respondent authority did not put his initial, they cannot be find fault with the same and the matter is liable to be referred under Section 18 of the Act. The impugned order dated 27-05-2001 reads as under: “Smt.U.Laxmidevi, W/o. Late Ramarao, and Patnals Laxmi W/o.Apparao, land owners residents of Vizianagaram are informed that the Collector, Vizianagaram has observed that as per the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad, in the Ref.No.G/468/96/Dt:3-4-96, the Land Acquisition Officer shall record the words “UNDER PROTEST” and put his date and initial against each entry in the last column of the code Form-CC. In this case, it was not done by the Land Acquisition Officer who passed the award has affixed his remark rejecting the claim of the applications and further observed that the limitation period U/s.18 is also over. In view of the observations made by the collector, Vizianagaram and on a thorough perusal of the entire file, there are no sufficient and reasonable grounds to refer the matter to Civil Court, at this stage. Therefore, the matter cannot be reopened at this state.” It is to be observed from the impugned order that whenever the land owners receive the compensation through the award under protest, the words “under protest” should be recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer and against which he has to put his initial and date that was not happened in the instance case. Therefore, the case of the petitioners was rejected. It is also necessary to extract the relevant portion of the letter dated 22-01-2000 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Collector soliciting instructions reads as under: “I further submit that as seen from the acquitance in Form-CC Dt:12-9-97 the entries of protest made by the claimants-Awardees have not been attested by the then LAO & RDO., VZM., and also he has recorded that he do not considered any of the protests made by the claimants-Awardees as it was not made formerly. As such the proposals U/s.18 of the L.A. Act could not be submitted in this case. In the circumstances stated above, I further submit that it is not possible for attestation at the entries of protests made by the claimants-awardees at this stage. I solicit instructions in the matter.” From the above, it could be observed that the petitioners have expressed their protest while receiving the compensation and that protest is recorded in the relevant record but the concerned Land Acquisition Officer did not attest the same. For non-attestation of the said protest in the relevant record by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners need not forego the right of reference under Section 18 of the Act. Further, no investigation appears to have been made as to whether who was the Land Acquisition Officer, who recorded the protest of the awardees and who failed to put his initial as required under the rules. With reference to the said protest, letter dated 22-01-2000 was addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Collector soliciting instructions making observations that there was a word ‘protest’ is mentioned in the relevant record but the same is not attested by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer, from which it is clear that the petitioners have received compensation with protest. In addition to the specific case of the petitioners that they have expressed protest that was recorded in the relevant record, it is also their specific case that after receipt of a notice dated 09-09-1997 on 12-09-1997 under Section 12(2) of the Act immediately on the same day, the petitioners have made a written representation seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. For better appreciation, Section 18 of the Act is extracted, which reads as under: “Reference to Court:-(1) 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 whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. Provided that every such application shall be made:- (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.” The limitation period is prescribed under Section 18 of the Act for expressing protest is six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire and the petitioners appear to have made their representation within the time stipulated under Section 18 of the Act expressing their protest and the same was recorded in the relevant record but the same was not attested by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer and in respect of which no proper enquiry appears to have been made. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of not filing the counter rebutting the averments of the petition and for the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 27-05-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, is bad in law and illegal and without application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. Further, the matter is remitted to the respondent authorities to verify the record with reference to the expression of protest stated to have been made by the petitioners while receiving the compensation and also the representation dated 12-09-1997 stated to have been made by the petitioners and the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 18-04-2009 LSK