1. G.Vittalaiah v. '1 . The State of Telangana

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the respondent authorities in referrrng the matter to the competent court as per sec.1B of the Land Acquisition Act, inspite of the orders passed in WP,No.2800 of 2000 dt.17- 10-2001 , as being illegal, arbitrary and un constitution a l. l.A.NO:1 OF 2015 (V/PMP.NO:41 334 OF 201 5) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corrrt nray be pleased to direct the responde rts to forthwith refer the matter to the conrpetent Civil Court pertaining to the award proceedings No.1/3031/96, dt.20.02.1996 U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, pursuant to the orders passed in W.P.no.2800 of 2000 dt.17.10.2001 for the determination of fair market value, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Pet tioners : SRI VENKATESWARLU SANISEI-TY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.3 1980 of 2015 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and perused the record.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that their land admeasuring Acs.24.0B guntas, in toto, situated in various survey nurnbers of Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was acquired by the respondents-authorities for the benefit of South Central Railways by issuing preliminary notification dt.24.11.1989, and thereafter, by passing an award dt.20.02.1996.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the respondents-authorities had issued notice dt.22.02.1996 under Section l2(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, iB94 (for short, 'the Act), the compensation amount determined under the Award was paid only on

22.10.1996; that the petitioners on receiving the compensation by objecting to the said compensation amount determined, had submitted an application on the same date, i.e. 22.10.1996, seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act; that in spite of the petitioners submitting the aforesaid application within time, the same has not been referred to ttrc Court by the respondents-authorities; and thus, there has been inaction 2 on the part of the respondents-authorities in adhering to the provisions of the Act. It is thus contended that the inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities is highly illegal' arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Per contra,learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 4. respondents would submit that the respondents-authorities on passing of the Award dt.20.02.1996, had issued notice dt'22'02'1996 under Section 12(2) of the Act and if the petitione6 are aggrieved by the passing of the Award and the compensation amount determined thereunder' ought to have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act within the time prescribed under the Act, by stating the grounds' to enable the respondents-authorities to make a reference to the Court' as defined under Section l(d) of the Act'

5. Learnec Government Pleader further submits that since the petitioners by their own admission admit to the fact of having received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of passing of the Award dt.20.02.1996, filed application seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act only on 22'10'1996' beyond the time limit of tvvo months prescribed under Section 18(2Xb) of the Act' as applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and as such, the said application filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act cannot be considered as validly filed'

6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged' v 3

7.Section18(1)oftheActconfersrightonanypersoninterestedto seek reference to the court in four types of disputes, 42, (i) objection as to the measurement of the land (ii) as to the amount of compensation (iii) as to the person to whom it is payable and (iv) as to apportionment of compensation among the persons interested' Sub-section (2) thereof providesfortimeframewithinwhichsuchanapplicationistobe submitted. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act provides for six week time from the date of the collector's Award, if the personmakingapplicatkrnwaspresentorrepresentedbeforetheCollector andsub-clause(b)asapplicableintheStateofA.P.(then)providesfor wvo months of time from the date of service of notice from the collector under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act.

8. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the petitioners were servedwithnoticedt.22.02.1996underSection12(2)oftheActon 22.10.1996. However, the petitioners did not choose to submit any application seeking reference to Court under Section 18 of the Act within a period of Wvo rnonths prescribed under the Act'

9. Though it was sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that they had received the compensation only on 22'10'1996' and immediately on receiving the aforesaid compensation, having submitted application seeking a reference to Court, it is to be noted that there is no linkage/inter-connection between the receipt of the compensation and \ 4 making the application under section 18 of the Act. since the petitioneE weremadeawareofpassingoftheAwardbyissuingnoticeunderSection l2(2) of the Act, the petitioners ought to have taken steps for filing the application seeking reference to Court within the time prescribed thereunder and could not have awaited for receipt of the compensation amount.

10. Since, the petitioners admittedly had filed application seeking referencetoCourtunderSectionlBoftheActonlyon22.10.1996,this court is of the rriew that the said application having been filed beyond the timeprescribedundertheAct,thesamecannotbeheldasavalidlyfiled application for this Court to hold inaction on the paft of the respondents- authorities in making reference to Court, as the authorities are not conferred with any power to condone the delay in filing the said application, for thas Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to make a reference' ll.Inviewoftheabove,theWritPetitionasfiledisdevoidofany merit and it is accordingly dismissed' No order as to costs'

12.Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany,pendinginthiswritpetitionshall /iTRUE COPY// ASS T NT REGISTRAR \\-\---------=-\ rl secttoN oFFlcER Telangana at Hyd erabad. [OUT]

1. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACOUISITION, High Court for the State of 2. one ct to sRt vENKATESWAirlu sRNtsETtY, Advocate [oPUC] 3. Two CD Copies To SA GJP ,/ HIGH COURl' DATED:22101 12025 ORDER WP.No.3198Ct of 2015 ii;'l o t 0i Li t' ,rn'* (tirl ar- '. i < ,l "' t/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,,4 / / 7?