THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20656 of 1994 Date:28.07.2010 Between: Neelapu Sankara Reddy. ………..Petitioner. AND The Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam and another. ………Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20656 of 1994 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Neelapu Sankara Reddy seeking mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in resubmitting the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to acquisition of land, which is the subject matter of Award No.1/89 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District-2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.17/1B and Ac.0.86 cents in Sy.No.17/5 situated in Thanesahebpeta, hamlet of Kalingapatnam. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District acquired the land owned by the petitioner for providing house sites to the weaker sections under Award No.1/81. Compensation of Rs.28,569-10 ps has been paid to the petitioner. The petitioner received the compensation by way of a draft through post. He claims to have sent notice dated 8.1.1990 to the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court with regard to determination of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. There being no response to the notice, he got issued a lawyer notice dated 16.8.1990 and further notice dated 4.9.1992. According to him, the 2nd respondent sent reference to the Civil Court but the Civil Court returned the reference for rectification of certain objections, and, thereafter, the 2nd respondent has not represented the reference. For providing better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer Paras No.4 & 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, which reads as hereunder:- “However, he had unwillingly and hesitatingly referred the matter to the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam submitting the necessary papers under Section 18 of the Act. The Court returned the references, raising some objections. Instead of complying with the objections and representing the references to the Court, the 2nd respondent is conveniently avoiding to represent the same. Thereupon, I got a lawyer’s registered notice dated 21.9.1992 issued to the 2nd respondent, calling upon him to make a reference to the civil Court by representing the returned reference after complying with the objections raised by the Court. The 2nd respondent received the notice on 22.9.1992 but no action was taken thereon. Thus, another lawyer’s notice dated 25.5.1993 was got issued by me to the 2nd respondent, marking a copy to the 1st respondent, and both of them received the same on 29.5.1993. In spite of it, no representation of the reference was made under Section 18, which was returned by the Court thereby, negating my rights to agitate the matter in a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. I respectfully submit, that as per Section 18 of the Court, the person interested in the land, who has not accept the correctness and the adequacy of the compensation may require the authorities to refer the matter to the Civil Court, and the acquiring authorities are bound to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 & 19 of the Act, so that, the claim of the aggrieved party can be determined and adjudicated according to law by the concerned Civil Court. A liability is cast on the respondents to make the reference to the Civil Court for necessary adjudication relating to the adequacy of the compensation granted under the award. The callous attitude of the 2nd respondent in not resubmitting the reference, complying with all the objections and getting the reference numbered is practically negating and frustrating my valuable rights vested under the Act. If this kind of attitude is allowed under law, the interests of the parties, who are aggrieved by the Land Acquisition, due to non-adequacy of the compensation, can be frustrated by such intentional and willful failure of the exercise of the jurisdiction. Thus, the conduct of the 2nd respondent is highly arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, I submit, that this is a fit case to grant necessary directions to the respondents.” A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Dr.K.S.Jawahar Reddy has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has filed a petition dated 8.1.1990 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting the authorities to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the proper compensation. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that had no point of time, a reference has been made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received the compensation under protest, and, thereafter, sent a notice on 8.1.1990, requesting the 2nd respondent for referring the matter to the Civil Court for determination of proper compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents failed to refer the matter to the Civil Court and it necessitated the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner received the compensation without any protest and at no point of time, he filed application making a request to refer the matter to the Civil Court for redetermination and more particularly the alleged notice dated 8.1.1990. In a way, it is the specific contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not sent any notice to the respondents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also contended that at no point of time, a reference was made to the Civil Court for redetermination of the compensation. The petitioner having taken a stand that he sent notice dated 8.1.1990 to the respondents seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for redetermination failed to place on record the said notice. Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner has to make a request within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the District Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2) or within six months from the date of the award whichever period shall expire first. Once the notice dated 8.1.1990 excluded from consideration, the request made by the petitioner through a legal notice, admittedly, is beyond the period stipulated under Section 18, sub-section (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner received the compensation under protest. In which case, the petitioner has no right to get the matter referred to the Civil Court for determination of proper compensation. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court, and, thereupon, the Civil Court returned the papers. But the respondents specifically denied the aspect of making a reference to the Civil Court with regard to determination of the compensation. The petitioner has not placed any material to show that such a reference has been made to the Civil Court for determination. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:28.7.2010 mrb