IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15403 of 2001 Between: 1 Pita Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Tarakaturu, Gudur Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Pita Bhagyalakshmi, W/o. Peeta Nagammaleswara rao, R/o. Tarakaturu, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bandar Division, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmus directing the respondents herein to refer the Award 1/89 dated 14-8-1989 to the Subcourt, Machilipatnam u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, in so far it relates to the petitioners herein for the land covrered by R.SS.No.152/1 of an extent of Ac.2.18 cents situated at Tarakaturu village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 15403 OF 2001 ORDER: 1. The relief sought for by the petitioners in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) with respect to Ac.2-10 cents of their land in R.S.No. 152/1 situated at Tarakturu village, Guduru Mandal, Krishna District. 2. The petitioners have alleged that under award dated 14.8.1989 the aforesaid land was acquired and compensation was determined by Land Acquisition Officer, Bandar Division, Machilipatnam at Rs.20,000/- per acre and dissatisfied with the said compensation, they sought for a reference. It is alleged that though the reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the same was returned by the civil Court on 7.11.1989 seeking certain clarifications from the Land Acquisition Officer and thereafter none of the respondents has taken care to comply with the deficiencies and clarifications pointed out by the civil court and thereby the reference has not reached back the civil court. The petitioners allege that they made representations on 29.3.1993 and 24.8.1998, apart from several oral reminders and requests which have not produced any result and ultimately they have approached this Court questioning the inaction of the respondents. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents in spite of numerous opportunities granted. However, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has sought instructions from 2nd respondent and on the basis of which, he made submissions with respect to this matter. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ land was acquired for the purpose of summer storage tank and under the award No. 1/89, dated 14.8.1989 compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and it was referred to civil court. It is asserted by the respondents that the reference was made to Subordinate Judge’s court, Machilipatnam on 27.1.1990 and further orders from the said court were not received so far. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that since the reference was already made to civil court on 27.1.1990, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. 4. It is to be noted that there is a dispute with respect to date of reference to civil court. While the petitioners claimed that the reference was made to civil court some time in November, 1989, according to respondents, it was actually made on 27.1.1990. The petitioners have filed copies of letters exchanged between Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam and Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar Division, Machilipatnam and copy of reference along with the writ petition. The petitioners have also produced attested copies of above said letters in RC L.A.No. 4798/80, dated 16.1.1990 during the hearing of this writ petition and furnished one set of those copies to learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The said letters show that the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam returned the reference pointing out certain defects that address particulars - age, profession and religion were required to be mentioned in the reference form, apart from number and date of award and measurement of land in hectares and accordingly directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to re-submit the reference after duly rectifying the mistakes. It is, therefore, evident from the above correspondence that the reference with respect to petitioners’ land was, in fact made by the respondents, but the same was returned by the civil court with certain objections, but no action was taken by the respondents on the reference in spite of several written representations made by the petitioners. With the result, the reference made was un-adjudicated and unanswered. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that for similarly acquired lands, a reference was made to civil court and compensation was enhanced, however, the petitioners alone remained without any benefit on account of inaction on the part of respondents. The aforesaid situation is nothing but pathetic and the inaction of respondents clearly needs to be seriously deprecated. The respondents have apparently failed to discharge their statutory duties in complying with the requirements and the deficiencies pointed out by the civil court in the reference made by them. On account of apathy and negligence of the respondents, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition with the following directions, (1) That the petitioners are permitted to make a fresh representation along with two sets of copies of correspondence produced before this court during hearing of this writ petition to each of the respondents and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall forthwith comply with the deficiencies pointed out by civil court and re-submit the reference within two weeks of receipt of representation; (2) The respondent Nos.1 shall enquire and identify the officer/s, responsible for the negligence and non-submission of reference to civil court after complying with defects and shall take appropriate disciplinary action against him/them. (3) The respondents shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) are imposed payable to the petitioners simultaneously with re- submission of reference as directed above and the said costs shall be recovered from the concerned officer/s responsible for the above negligence. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 6.2.2009 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bandar Division, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3. CC to GP for Land Acquisition, 4. 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BDLNM}