High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in referring the to the civil court under section 18 in respect of rand to an extent of Ac. 0.31 guntas situated in survey No.2g5, at sarangapur of Nizamabad District by considering the protest apprication dated 19.0g.2006 pursuant to the award proceedings No. 821265412004 dated 17.07.2006, as iilegar arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the L.A. Act. consequentiar direction directing the 3rd respondent to refer the matter to the civir court under section 1g of the L.A. Act in respect of Iand to an extent of Ac. 0.3i guntas situated in Survey No.2g5, at Sarangapur of Nizamabad by considering the protest petition pursuant to the award proceedings No. 82/265412004 dated 17 07.2006 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 3484 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 18 of the L.A. Aci in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 0.3'1 guntas situated in Survey No.295, at Sarangaicur of Nizamabad by considering the protest petition pursuant to the award proceedings No.821265412004 dated 17.O7.20OG Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH. DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Res;pondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made ther following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR ,/ Writ Petiti on No.2840of20 L4 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 3 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondents- authorities have acquired his land to an extent of Ac'0'31 guntas in Sy.No.295 situated at Sarangapur Village, Nizamabad Mandal, by passing Award dt.17.07.2006; that in respect of the said acquisition, the compensation amount payable has been fixed in a sum of Rs'85,310/-; that the petitioner while receiving the aforesaid amount of compensat'ton determined, had recorded his protest, on 19.09.2006 and sought for reference being made to the Court for deciding the correct compensation amount; and that in spite of the petitioner submitting the aforesaid application, the respondents-a uthorities have failed to make reference of the award to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act'), which action, it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

3. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents on the basis of the cou nter-affidavit submits that the 2 'i petitioner by his own admission, admit to fact of the application filed by him seeking reference of the award to Court under Section 18 of the Act being beyond time of six weeks provided under section 1B(2)(a) of the Act; that the petitioner was aware of passing of the order, since, he had received the compensation amount, on 19.09.2006; and thus, the application filed on 19.09.2006 seeking reference to the Court having been filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act, cannot be considered for it to be referred to the Court, inasmuch as the said authority is not conferred with any power to accept application filed beyond the time prescribed under the Act.

5. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the petitioner was aware of the award when the same was passed by the Collector, the two months period prescribed under Section 1B(2Xb) of the Act (as appllcable in the State of Andhra Pradesh) would not be applicable.

6. I have taken note ofthe respective contentions urged.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had participated in the land acquisition proceeding, since the award records his appearance before the land acquisition authority and also consideration of his objections with regard to the compensation being determined. B. Though the petitioner before the land acquisition authority had claimed compensation in respect of land Ac.0.31 guntas acquired from him 3 @ Rs.500/- per square yard, however, on the respondents-authorities determining the compensation amount in a sum of Rs.85,310/- for the aforementioned extent of land did not choose to file application under Section 18 of the Act within the time prescribed under the Act. It is only after expiry of the time prescribed under the Act and at the time of receiving the compensation amount, had recorded his protest and sought to refer the matter to the concerned Court for deciding the correct compensation amount.

9. The said recording oF protest by the petitioner while accepting the compensation amount after explry oF the time prescribed under the Act cannot be considered as validly made in relation to the amount of compensation for the authority to make a reference under the Act, as Section 18 of the Act stipulates time limit of six weeks. if the person filing objection was present or was represented before the Collector at the time t t when the award was made, or within two months from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.

10. Since, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner was present at the time when the award was made, the period of six weeks has to be reckoned for the purpose of submitting application under Section 18 of the Act, and as the application filed by the petitioner is beyond period of six weeks, the said application cannot be considered as having been filed in 4 time for the authority to make a reference to the court under section 18 of the Act. 11' Thus, this court is of the considered view that as, the petitioner had fired appricatron beyond the time prescribed under the Act, the said application cannot be considered as having been varidry fired for the authorities to make a reference to the court under section 1B of the Act. 12. Thus, the present writ petition as fired is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneor.rs petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. I i Ij To, SD/.T. JAY ASSISTANT REG SREE TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. CH. DHANAMJAYA, 4qI9949 [OPUCI 2. rwo CCs to Gp FoR LANirj XCdUiSrttOr1 ftigh Couri for the State of 3. Two CD CoPies Telangana at tlYderabad [OUT] BM BS I I HE S I^,, 1 ( 9^ ( o I 2 t tto 2025 I D1: Srt TCq r-O HIGH COUR]- DATED:0610112025 ORDER WP.No.2840 of 2014 DISMISSING HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (o ., \..--, t- \%\u\?n'