THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21910 of 2002 July 12, 2010 Between: Burra Laxmi, W/o.Gouraiah And others … Petitioners And The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug, Waranga District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21910 of 2002 ORDER: The extent of Acs.192.12 in S.Nos.326, 327, 328 etc., situated at Bhoopalpally Village in Warangal District, was proposed to be acquired for mining in KTK-5 & 5A of Singareni Collieries. Petitioners are allegedly residents of Bhoopalpally Village owning different extents of lands where they raised mango, lime, coconut gardens and also raised eucalyptus, eppa, kukudu and tunki trees. Petitioners allegedly submitted applications on 11.4.2000 seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) to Civil Court. They sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. Alleging that the respondent failed to refer the cases to Civil Court, they filed instant writ petition on 31.10.2002. The counter affidavit is filed admitting the acquisition and passing of award for Rs.21,000/- per acre. It is however stated that petitioners’ counsel did not submit any application on 11.4.2000 and that there are no entries in the Inward register. The matter was called on 02.7.2010. At the request of the counsel for petitioners, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioners to file reply affidavit. A reply affidavit is filed enclosing the copies of original applications/petitions filed under Section 18 of the Act. It is stated that counsel for petitioners submitted applications/petitions under Section 18 of the Act to respondent and also obtained acknowledgments in receipt of the applications on the face of copies of applications. It is also stated that Inward register containing 37 pages is not for the relevant period. This Court heard the counsel for petitioners and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition). Petitioners have denied the allegation in the counter affidavit that the petitioners did not make any applications under Section 18 of the Act. They also relied on the Photostat copies of the petitions filed before the respondent with a stamp and seal on the left top of the applications. In typed copies of the petitions filed along with writ petition, it is however shown the office seal of the respondent is on the left bottom of the applications. Secondly if the petitioners’ counsel submitted petitions to respondent and obtained stamp thereon, they ought to have made such averment in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. They did not do so. Therefore this Court is convinced that as an afterthought petitioners appear to have concocted stamp and seal on the copies of petitioners, which are now produced before this Court after lapse of eight years after filing writ petition. Thirdly the Assistant Government Pleader has produced before this court the Inward register from the Office of respondent. There are entries on 04.4.2000 and 15.4.2000. There are no entries between those days. In the absence of any such entry, an inference in favour of petitioners cannot be accepted. Nextly it is admitted by petitioners that all of them participated in the award enquiry and claimed compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. If that be so, nothing prevented them to protest. There is not even an allegation that petitioners protested before the Land Acquisition Officer. In such an event, second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act is attracted and petitioners are not entitled to make applications under Section 18 of the Act. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 12, 2010 YS