IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23993 of 2002 Between: Rangaiah Gari Pullamma, W/o. Pedda Ranga Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Regada Guduru Village, Velugodu Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Velugodu Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. G.VENKAT REDDY FOR MR.K.RATHANGAPANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in referring application, dated 12.05.1995 to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of Award No.1/87-88 passed by respondent No.2 relating to the petitioner’s land admeasuring Acs.2.17 cents in Survey No.80/2-A of Regada Guduru Village as illegal and arbitrary. The land, over which the petitioner had interest, along with other lands, was acquired under notiﬁcation, dated 10.03.1986 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act by the respondents for the purpose of providing house-sites to the weaker sections. Award No.1/87-88, dated 31.10.1987 was passed by respondent No.2. As there were competing claims for compensation, the dispute was referred under Section 31(2) of the Act by respondent No.2, which was registered as O.P.No.1350 of 1990 on the ﬁle of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Atmakur, Kurnool District. The said O.P. was disposed of on 15.03.1995. In paragraph 5 of her aﬃdavit, the petitioner categorically stated that though she protested against the quantum of compensation awarded by respondent No.2, the latter did not refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the issue under Section 31(2) of the Act was pending before the civil Court. The petitioner pleaded that the requests of the land owners covered by the same notiﬁcation were referred under Section 18 of the Act, which were taken on ﬁle by the civil Court as O.P.Nos.1006 of 1988 and batch, and the same were disposed of by the reference Court by enhancing the compensation to Rs.50,000/- per acre. The petitioner also pleaded that in A.S.No.59 of 1997 and batch, this Court reduced the compensation to Rs.43,000/- by its judgment, dated 10.09.1998. In paragraph 6, the petitioner stated that though she submitted an application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act immediately after the disposal of O.P.No.1350 of 1990, the same was kept pending without any further steps and hence, she filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he inter alia denied receipt of any application from the petitioner, much less, application, dated 04.05.1995. He pleaded that since the petitioner’s application for reference is beyond the time limit stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act, the same cannot be referred to the civil Court. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have carefully perused the record. Under Section 18 of the Act, the owner of the land, who is dissatisﬁed with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, is entitled to seek reference of the dispute to the civil Court. In cases where notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is not served, such an application for reference shall be made within two (2) months from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. In Special Deputy Collector, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Godavarikhani v. Dasari Ramulu and others[1], the Full Bench of this Court, while summarizing its findings, inter alia held as under: “34. In view of the observations made above, we are of the considered view that: (1) xxxx (2) The notice under Section 30 by the Court even if served by the Collector cannot be equated with the notice under Section 12(2) required to be served for the purpose of commencement of the limitation under Section 18(2)(b); (3) xxxx (4) The burden of alleging and proving of the service of notice either actually or constructively, is on 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 acquired actually or constructively the knowledge of the award from which the period of limitation would commence.” In the instant case, it is not in dispute that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner in paragraph 5 categorically pleaded that when she approached respondent No.2 during the pendency of O.P.No.1350 of 1990, he did not refer the case under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the O.P. was pending. She also stated that she made another application on 04.05.1995 after the disposal of the O.P. In the counter- aﬃdavit, respondent No.2 denied receipt of both the applications. However, the petitioner ﬁled a copy of representation, dated 04.05.1995 with a seal and an initial showing its receipt by the oﬃce of the MRO. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court a copy of representation, on which original seal along with the initial is contained, showing that the same was received on 04.05.1995. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has not produced any record to show that the representation of the petitioner was not available in the file. From the above facts, it is clear that respondent No.2 has not come out with the correct statement when he denied receipt of representation, dated 04.05.1995. However, the fact that the petitioner ﬁled application in the year 1995 by itself would not enable her to seek reference, because the period of two (2) months from the date of passing of award expired in the year 1988 itself. Since the petitioner herself conceded in paragraph 5 that she approached respondent No.2 for reference during the pendency of the O.P., it is deemed that she had knowledge of passing of the award. In order to show that she approached respondent No.2 immediately after passing of the award, she pleaded in paragraph 6 that in her application ﬁled through her counsel on 12.05.1995, she stated that she has earlier approached respondent No.2 with a request to refer the dispute to civil Court and the same was acknowledged by him on 19.12.1987. As mentioned above, respondent No.2 in his counter-aﬃdavit categorically denied receipt of any such application. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to produce proof of the alleged acknowledgment, dated 19.12.1987 or proof of service of the alleged petition, dated 12.05.1995. The petitioner is able to produce proof of her making a request only on 04.05.1995 i.e. almost 8 years after passing of the award. Hence, the request of the petitioner is beyond the time stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 18(2) of the Act. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th AUGUST, 2008. kvni [1] 2000(2) ALD 418 (DB)