M VENKATA RAO Vs. L A O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to refer the Award No.5 /87 dated 31-1-1987 to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) for proper adjudication and for enhancement of compensation. The facts leading to the case are that: The petitioner is the owner of the lands situate in Sy. Nos.355/12 and 355 /15 to an extent of Ac.3.66 cents and 25 cents respectively, situate Srungavaram, Nathavaram Mandal, Vizag district. These lands have been acquired for public purpose viz., Yeleru left canal. After publication of notice, Award proceedings were initiated and award was passed on31-l-1987 in Award No.5/1987by the 1st respondent-The land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Yeluru Left Canal, Anakapalli.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that even during the Award Proceedings, he made a representation on 2-5-1986, which was received by the Authorities on 7-5-1986, bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent that in the land which is sought to be acquired, there are number of trees and also wells and the same may be considered, while passing Award. But, it appears that no action was taken. However, a notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act was received by the petitioner on 8-2-1987. Therefore, again he made a representation on 20-2-1987 requesting 1st respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. But no action was taken. The petitioner submits that the application made by him seeking reference u/s. 18 of the Act on 28-2-1987 wassent to the 1st respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and the same was received in the office of 1st respondent on 19-3-1987. Therefore, he submits that the representation filed by him is within the limitation prescribed under Sec.18 of the Act, inasmuch as the application was filed within two months from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit contending that the application said to have been sent by the petitioner was never received in its Office and, therefore, the question of referring the matter to a Civil Court does not arise.