HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7815 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner owned land in various survey numbers of Komireddypally Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahbubnagar District, abutting National Highway No.7. Recently, the respondents have undertaken steps for widening and improvement of the Highway. The land of the petitioner to an extent of Acs.2.36 gts., was acquired by issuing notification under the National Highways Act (for short ‘the Act’). An award was passed on 04-01-2008 and the petitioner was paid compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The petitioner states that he made a representation on 20-01-2008 to the competent authority and the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent herein, with a request to refer the matter to the 1st respondent. His grievance is that no steps were taken by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has mentioned the notices, said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent to various neighbouring land-owners referring the matter to the 1st respondent for enhancement of compensation. 2. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegation of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner did not submit any representation or application seeking reference of the matter under Section 3 H (5) of the Act. According to them, the 1st application was made only on 10-08-2009. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Standing Counsel for National Highways. 4. It is not in dispute that an extent of Acs.2.36 gts., of land, owned by the petitioner at Komireddypally, was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of extension of National Highway. The 2nd respondent determined the compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Section 3 G (5) of the Act confers a right upon the owner of the land to seek reference of the matter to the Arbitration, in case he is not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the competent authority. While the petitioner asserts that such an application was made by him on 20-01-2008, the 1st respondent states that application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘LA Act’) was made only on 10-08-2009. 4. Assuming that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to seek reference to arbitration immediately, the delay cannot by itself defeat the statutory right. Unlike Section 18 of the LA Act, Section 3 G (5) of the Act does not stipulate any time within which the application for reference must be made. The claims made by the owners of the neighbouring lands are under the consideration by the time the petitioner submitted the reminder on 10-08-2009. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, in case the petitioner is extended the same benefit. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to refer the matter pertaining to enhancement of the compensation in respect of the land of the petitioner to the 1st respondent within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders, duly taking into account the orders passed by him, if any, for the neighbouring lands. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J February 28, 2011. KTL