THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14817 of 2007 ORDER: Although the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at the request of the learned counsel for both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and being disposed of by this order. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by endorsement, dated 06.06.2007 bearing Ref.No.83/04 S.D.T.I, issued by the respondent – Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector (LA), APIIC, SEZ, Unit No.1, Visakhapatnam, refusing to consider the application of the petitioners filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for referring the matter to the civil Court for enhancement of compensation. The petitioners are owners and possessors of two sites admeasuring 200 sq.yards each covered by Survey No.232/12H- 6A- 10-6D-6F-8I-8J-3A-3B-4-5A-5B-5C-10-11-2A-6-8E-8F-9K-9C of Pedagantyada Village within the limits of Gajuwaka Municipality of Visakhapatnam District. The aforesaid piece of land along with other lands, totally admeasuring Acs.40.24 cents, was acquired for the purpose of development of back up area of Gangavaram Port. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, and after publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the award enquiry was taken up. In the award enquiry, though the father of the petitioners participated, he did not file claim petition. Ultimately, the award was passed on 27.08.2005 fixing the compensation for the land of the petitioners at Rs.29,621/- each. The said compensation was paid vide proceedings in Rc.No.83/2004 SDT- I, dated 08.05.2007 and thereafter, on 30.05.2007, the petitioners filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the civil Court to consider their claim for enhancement of compensation. The impugned endorsement is issued rejecting the request of the petitioners on the ground that it is time-barred. It is the case of the petitioners that as they have not participated in the enquiry and they were not present on the date of passing of the award and further, as notices contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act were not served on them, it is not open for the respondent to reject their application on the ground that they have filed application after prescribed time under Section 18 of the Act. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations of the petitioners, it is stated that as much as the petitioners have not filed claim petition, there is no obligation on the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is further stated that subsequent to passing of the award, the petitioners’ father, who is their general power of attorney, attended before the Officer concerned and requested to pay compensation for the acquired land and that the petitioners were awarded compensation of Rs.29,621/- each and they have received the same without any protest. It is also stated that the petitioners have filed application under Section 18 of the Act beyond the period of limitation, as such, their request has been rejected. Section 18(2) of the Act reads as under: (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 two months from the date or service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 sub-section(2). It is not in dispute that after conducting award enquiry, the award was passed on 27.08.2005 on which date the petitioners were not present. Even though there was no claim petition filed, it is obligatory on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. The plea of the respondent in the counter- affidavit that as there was no claim petition filed by the petitioners/claimants, they are not entitled for service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, cannot be accepted. As it is not in dispute that the petitioners were not present when the award was passed on 27.08.2005 and notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were not served on the petitioners, the period of computation for subsequent reference starts only from the date of payment of compensation i.e. 08.05.2007. Although it is pleaded in the counter-affidavit that there was no protest, such protest is not a condition. Even assuming that there is no protest that by itself is not a ground to reject the application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. As the petitioners have filed their application for reference on 27.05.2007 within the period of one month from the date of payment of compensation on 08.05.2007, in the absence of their presence during the award enquiry and also on the date of passing of the award and further, as it is not in dispute that notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were not served on them, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to reject their claim for reference. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned endorsement is hereby quashed with the direction to the respondent to refer the claim of the petitioners to the civil Court concerned within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the directions referred to above. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th AUGUST, 2011. kvni