'1. AGGU ASHANNA v. 'l . The state of reranoana

8. AGGU ASHANNA, S/o Rajaiah aged 46 years, Occ Agriculture 9. Aggu Narasaiah, S/o Rajaiah aged 42 years OccAgriculture 10.Aggu Sathaiah, S/o Rajaiah, aged 35 years Occ Agriculture 11.Aggu Venkatesh, S/o Rajaiah aged 32 years Occ Agriculture 12.Aggu Srinivas, S/o Raja.iah. .ag9d ll years Occ Agriculture All R/o SingapurViilage, Manch6riat Maidat, aOidoio Oiitrict. " ...RESPONDENTS - Petition under section 'r5'l..cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Htgn Corrr ruv LJ o,*""0 vacate the above said interim orders dated 10-7_201 5 " Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. p LAKSHMA REDDY counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FoR LAND AceursrfloN Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A ANANDA CHARY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.5 to g: __ The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Wri t N 203 1 01 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri A.Ananda Chary, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that aggrieved by the Award dt.31.12.20r4 passed by the respondents-authorities by not considering the petitioners' objections to the rand acquisition and arso to their exclusion for receiving the compensation/apportionment of compensation, they had submitted apprication dt.01.07.2015 seeking reference to court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1g94 (for short, .the Act); and in spite of the petitioners submitting the aforesaid apprication, the respondents-authorities have faired to make a reference to court with regard to the apportionment of compensation, which action of the respondents, it is contended as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Act. 3. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalF of respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the respondents_authorities on passing of the Award dt.3l.t2.21l4 have issued notice dt.02.04.2015 ca'ing upon the petitioners to appear before the authorities on 18.04.2015 I 2 .- at 11.00 am along with documentary evidence in suppot of their claim for payment of land comPensation.

4.LearnedGovernmentPleaderfurthersubmitsthatthoughthe petitioners had appeared before the authority on the said date' as no documentary evidence in support of their claim for payment of compensationlapportionment of compensation was submitted' the authority did not pay the compensation amount to the petitioners' Learned Government Pleader also submits that the petitioners 5. having appeared before the authorities, pursuant to the notice dt.02.04.2015,on1B.04.2015,hadsubmiftedtheirapplicationon 01.07.2015 under Section 16 of the Act beyond the period of two months prescribed unde!- sub-section (2Xb) of Section 18 of the Act (as applicable in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh)' Learned Government Pleader would also contend that as the application seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act is filed beyond the period prescribed' the said application has not been considered by the authority' inasmuch as the authority is not conferred with the power to condone the delay in filing the application seeking reference to the Court'

6. I have taken note ofthe respective contentions urged' 7 Though the petitioners had claimed of they not being aware of the award passed by the respondents-authorities dt'31'!2-2014' the J petitioners cannot claim ignorance of passing of the award, as notice dt.02.04.2015 has been issued cailing upon them to appear before the authority on 18.04.2015, and the petitioners having appeared on the said date before the authority. Thus, the notice dt.02.04.2015 has to be construed as a notice issued under section 12(2) oF the Act and thus,.the 'petitioners are required to file an application seeking reference to court under section 18 of the Act in relation to appoftionment of compensation, within a period oF two months from the date of issue of notice under section 12(2) of the Act. Thus, if the notice dt.02.04.2015 is taken as a base as per Section I2(2) of the Act, the application filed under Section 18(2Xb) of the Act is required to be filed on or before 01.06.2015.

8. Admittedty, the petitioners filed application only on OL.O7.ZOIS, which is beyond the time prescribed under the Act, and as such, the authority courd not have referred the same by condoning the delay in such filing in absence of any such power being conferred on him under the Act. since, the application fired by the petitioners is beyond the time prescribed under the Act, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the action of respondent-authority in not making reference to Court.

9. Accordingry, this court is of the view that the present writ petition as fired questioning the action of the respondents in not making reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary under the Act. I 4 .-

10. For the aforesaid reasons' the Writ Petition has to fail and is accordingly dismissed' No order as to costs' 11. Miscelraneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD DEPUTY h';[t'illt / IITRUE COPY'I SE OF FICER to'., on" ccto sRr P LAK'HN^AREDDY 1t'"1j:::," ; ; l" . ."-l:SJ,"^Hl,iHil,'ffi.J""* ror the state or . +:8""r*::35'5' 4. Two CD Copies ^.,^ nr KKS KKS u HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 ., o u. .$ $* (.,\. + I "t / ORDER WP.No.20301 of 2015 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7 /z ,< /rzqr4/