IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22870 of 2000 Between: Sadullah Khan … Petitioner AND Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor Counsel for the respondent: AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22870 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to refer the petitioner’s application for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) in respect of Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.35/A of Enbora Village, Madnoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. The petitioner is the owner of certain lands, which were acquired by the respondent, who passed an award on 08.03.1991. As there was dispute between the petitioner and others regarding entitlement to receive compensation, the same was referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The petitioner made his application on 11.11.1994 for reference of dispute to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. As the said application has not been disposed of, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit it is inter alia stated by the respondent that after the award was passed, as there was a dispute, the same was referred to civil Court under Section 30 of the Act and compensation amount was deposited under Section 31(2) of the Act, that the reference, which was numbered as O.P.No.38 of 1991, was compromised among the petitioner and other competing claimants on the strength of which the same was disposed of on 03.07.1992. It is further speciﬁcally stated in paragraph 8 that in terms of the said compromise, the petitioner received compensation of Rs.64,831/- on 28.07.1992 from the Subordinate Judges’ Court, Bodhan. It is therefore pleaded that though the petitioner had knowledge of the contents of the award, he did not ﬁle his application within the time prescribed and that there was a delay of more than 1½ years in ﬁling his application after the disposal of the O.P. At the hearing, Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani vs. Dasari Ramulu and others[1] and contented that since admittedly no notice of award, as envisaged in Section 12 (2) of the Act, has been issued, the limitation has not started running in view of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. Though this argument looked attractive, at the ﬁst instance, on a deeper examination of the same, I ﬁnd no substance in it. The Full Bench summarized the ﬁndings in paragraph 34. It is apt to reproduce clause 4 of para 34 for the present context. “The burden of alleging and proving of the service of notice either actually or constructively, is one the State when the State intends to take advantage contending that the application seeking reference under Section 18 is barred by limitation. It is for the State to show the date on which the claimant required actually or constructively the knowledge of the award from which the period of limitation would commence.” Thus, the provision relating to limitation prescribed under Section 18 (2)(b) of the Act is interpreted to the eﬀect that service of notice means that the land owner shall have the knowledge of the award either actual or constructive. It is not in dispute that Section 30 proceedings were compromised on the basis of which the petitioner has received compensation amount of Rs.64,831/- on 28.07.1992. This fact conclusively proves that without knowledge of the contents of the award, the petitioner would not have received his share of compensation under the award. Thus, though the petitioner was not served with notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, he had constructive knowledge of the contents of the award at least on 03.07.1992 when the O.P. was disposed of based on compromise. The petitioner ought to have ﬁled his application within two months thereof. Admittedly, about one year four months after the O.P. was compromised, the petitioner ﬁled the application. Therefore, he is not entitled for reference of dispute as his application is barred by time as stipulated under Section 12(2) of the Act. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 31.07.2008 ES [1] 2000 (2) ALD 418 FB