THE HONBLE ’Ms, JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2532 of 2006 ORAL ORDER: The land belonging to the petitioners situated in Sy.Nos.76 and 77 of Bodh village and Mandal, Adilabad District, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) for formation of a tank. After making due enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 19.11.2003 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per acre. The petitioners state that they received the compensation on 1.3.2004 under protest and that on the very same day they made a representation seeking reference to civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation. The said request of the petitioners was rejected by the 1st respondent by order dated 30.6.2004 on the ground that their application, which was made beyond 45 days from the date of the award dated 29.12.2003, was barred by limitation Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is contended by the petitioners that the compensation was received by way of a cheque on 1.3.2004 and that they came to know about the award dated 29.12.2003 only on receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and, therefore, the application made by them seeking reference on 1.3.2004 was well within the time. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioners were present before the Land Acquisition Officer when the award was passed on 29.12.2003 and therefore they ought to have made the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act within six weeks from 29.12.2003. Since the petitioners failed to make such application within time though they received the compensation on 11.1.2004, the Land Acquisition Officer had rightly rejected the petitioners’ application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act as time barred. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 18 of the Act, which provides for reference to the Civil Court, runs as under: Section 18. Reference to Court:- Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require, that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (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 of service of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 sub- section (2). (as amended by A.P. Act 20 of 1959) A plain reading of the above provision shows that if the applicant was present before the Collector at the time when the award was made, the application for reference shall be made within six weeks from the date of the award. In other cases the application is required to be made within two months from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. In the present case, admittedly, the award was passed on 29.12.2003. The learned Government Pleader produced a Xerox copy of the attendance sheet recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which shows that on 29.12.2003 both the petitioners herein were present before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also the specific case of the respondents that the petitioners received the compensation on 11.1.2004. Except a vague plea that they came to know about the award only on receipt of Section 12(2) notice, the petitioners could not furnish the date of service of the said notice nor the so called notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is produced before this court. It is relevant to note that the Collector is bound to issue notice under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act to the persons interested only where they were not present personally or by their representative when the award was made. Having regard to the material placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader, which shows that the petitioners were present before the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of making the award, the version of the petitioners that they were served with a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act itself cannot be believed. Consequently, Section 18(2)(a) of the Act comes into operation and the petitioners ought to have made the application within six weeks from the date of the Award. Since they failed to do so, the action of the Land Acquisition Officer in rejecting their application for reference on the ground that it was barred by limitation does not warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 18.6.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2532 of 2006 Between: 1 P.Chandra Mohan S/o.Nadipanna, aged about 42 years, Agriculture, r/o Boath village and Mandal, Boath Adilabad District Adilabad. 2 P. Godavari W/o P. Chandra Mohan, aged about 35 years, Agriculture, r/o Boath village and mandal, Adilabad District Adilabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Land Acquisition officer- cum- the Revenue Division Officer, Adilabad District, Adilabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, M.I.P.Division, (Irrigation), Nirmal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction or issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus:- i) Directing the respondents herein to refer the matter relating to the acquisition of 4 acres 5 guntas land situated in Sy.No.76 of petitioner No.1 and 4 acres 7 guntas land situated in Sy.No.77of petitioner No.2 of Boath village and Mandal, District Adilabad and award has been passed by the respondent No.1 vide proc.No.B/1940/01 dated 19.11.2003 to the competent Civil Court for determination of proper market value as per section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act; ii) Declare the action of respondents in not referring the said matter to competent civil court is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of article 14,21, 300- A and 31-A of the Constitution of India and against the section 18 of the L.A.Act; iii) and to pass any such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CEILING Govt. Pleader for Irrigation & ACAD Govt. Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: