IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8381 OF 2009 DATED:8.6.2011 Between: Shaik Peeru Saheb and others … Petitioners And Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Somasila Project, Unit-4, Rajampet, Cuddapah District … Respondent WRIT PETITION NO.8383 OF 2009 Between: Khadar Basha and others … Petitioners And Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Somasila Project, Unit-4, Rajampet, Cuddapah District … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Anguru Narayana Rao Counsel for the respondent : G.P. for Land Acquisition THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs.8381 AND 8383 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not referring the claims of the petitioners for enhanced compensation to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for Somasila Project in the years 1979 and 1980. Apart from the lands of the petitioners, various other lands were also acquired under separate notifications with reference to different reaches. The lands which are subject matter of the present dispute fall under reach Nos.1 to 9 and 12. Their grievance is that even though they have received compensation under protest, the Land Acquisition Officer has not referred their claim for enhanced compensation to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. They have relied upon the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dt.7.12.1987 in W.P. No.16725 of 1986 which pertains to reach Nos.5 and 7 wherein the petitioner Nos.2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 in W.P. No.8381 of 2009 and petitioner Nos.4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16 and 17 in W.P. No.8383 of 2009 were some of the petitioners in that writ petition to buttress their claim for reference to the Civil Court. In the counter affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet, the respondent herein, it is inter alia stated that in respect of the owners of the acquired lands, who filed their applications under Section 18 of the Act with a request for reference of their claims to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation, they were already referred which were numbered as L.A.O.P. Nos.17 and 19 of 1995 and that the petitioners have not filed any application whatsoever for reference under Section 18 of the Act and no applications have been pending before the respondent. At the hearing, Sri Anguru Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the final order dt.7.12.1987 in W.P. No.16725 of 1986 as referred to above wherein it was held that the very act of receiving the amount under protest impliedly constitutes a request for reference under Section 18 of the Act and therefore the question of delay on the part of the petitioners in seeking reference does not arise. On this premise the learned Judge allowed the writ petition pertaining to reach Nos.5 and 7. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners herein are also entitled to the same direction as was given in the previous writ petition referred to above. Opposing the above contentions, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that the petitioners have not made any application for reference in respect of reach Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12. He further submitted that the order of the learned single Judge runs counter to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra[1]. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Section 18 of the Act reads as under: “18. 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.” A careful reading of the provision reproduced above would leave no doubt that making a written application by a person interested, who has not accepted the Award, is sine qua non for reference of the claim for determination of compensation to the Civil Court by the Collector. In Mohammed Hasnuddin (supra), the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 18 of the Act, held as under: “The word 'require' in S. 18 of the Act implies compulsion. It carries with it the idea that the written application makes it incumbent on the Collector to make a reference. The Collector is required to make a reference under S.18 on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The first condition is that there shall be a written application by a person interested who has not accepted the award. The second condition is as to the nature of the objections which may be taken, and the third conditions is as to the time within which the application shall be made. The power of the Collector to make a reference under S. 18 is thus circumscribed by the conditions laid down therein, and one condition is the condition regarding limitation to be found in the proviso. The conditions laid down in S. 18 are 'matters of substance and their observance is a condition precedent to the Collector's power of reference', as rightly observed by Chandavarkar J. in Re Land Acquisition Act (supra). We are inclined to the view that the fulfilment of the conditions, particularly the one regarding limitation, are the conditions subject to which the power of the Collector to make the reference exists. It must accordingly be held that the making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to S. 18, sub-sec. (2) is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector. From these considerations, it follows that the court functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under S. 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the court jurisdiction to hear the reference. In view of these principles, we would be extremely reluctant to accept the statement of law laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Karim's case (AIR 1963 All 556) (FB) (supra).” (Emphasis added) The view of the learned single Judge of this Court taken in W.P. No.16725 of 1986 runs counter to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Hasnuddin (supra). Therefore it requires to be held that the order of the learned single Judge referred to above is per incuriam. It is not even the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have made applications at any point of time and the writ petitions are based on the sole plea that as they have received compensation under protest the Collector is bound to refer their claims to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As this premise is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitled for reference of their claims for enhancement to the Civil Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No orders. ________________________ (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 08.6.2011 bnr Note: L.R. copy to be marked. (B.O) bnr [1] AIR 1979 SC 404