HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21364 of 2007 Date : 05.09.2011 Between : Chennamaneni Madan Mohan Rao & others. …..Petitioners And The Collector, Karimnagar District & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21364 of 2007 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the Memo, dated 22nd March 2007, issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilla, in Memo No.A1/1648/2006, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands of petitioners admeasuring Ac.3.04 ½ gts. in Sy.No.546/E, Ac.1.10 gts. in Sy.No.546/A and Ac.1.10 gts. in Sy.No.546/AA, totaling to Ac.5.24 gts., situated at Marupaka village of Vemulavada Mandal in Karimnagar District, were notified for acquisition by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, for providing house sites to beedi workers of Marupaka village. After following necessary procedure, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.03.2003, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.27,000/- per acre. Notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were served on the petitioners on 03.04.2003. The petitioners have filed applications on 07.08.2006 and 15.12.2006 before the Land Acquisition Officer, seeking to refer the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for fixation of market value for the lands acquired. By the impugned Memo dated 22.03.2007, their request is rejected on the ground that the applications filed by them are barred by limitation. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioners that they have received the compensation by recording their protest, and inspite of filing applications within the time prescribed, respondents have issued the impugned memo without recording valid reasons. In the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, while denying the various allegations of the petitioners, it is stated that the award was passed on 31.03.2003 and notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were served on 03.04.2003 and that the petitioners have not filed their objections within two months from the date of receipt of notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. When the matter was heard on the last occasion, as it was submitted before this Court that applications, which were filed in the month of December 2006, were by way of reminders and earlier applications were filed within two months from the date of receipt of notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the original file was called for. A perusal of the file also shows that no application was filed within the stipulated time. Even the petitioners have not given the date of filing the applications within the period prescribed either after passing of award or after receipt of notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Although it is the case of petitioners that the applications filed in the month of December 2006 are reminders, in view of denial of allegation of petitioners that they had filed applications within the time prescribed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in the absence of any proof of filing such applications, I do not find any illegality in issuing the impugned Memo. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th September 2011 ajr