( 1 ) THESE writ petitions have been referred to a Full Bench on the ground that the main point arising therein is the same as the case in W. A. No. 144/1986. The point raised in W. A. No. 144/1986 is regarding the point of time from which limitation for reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would commence. The said Writ Appeal could not be heard by us for other reasons. But inasmuch as the same point is involved here, we propose to decide the same in W. P. No. 13203/1985. So far as W. P. Nos. 11940, 11764 and 11938 of 1985 are concerned, we shall deal with them separately, at the end of this judgment. We shall first refer to the facts in W. P. No. 13203/1985 initially.

( 2 ) IN W. P. No. 13203/85, the relief claim-ed is for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent (the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Unit I, Sriram-sagar Project) to refer to the civil court u/s. 18 of the Act the matter in respect of the compensation in respect of Ac. 50-00 of land covered by the single Award No. 10/1976-77 dated 9-12-1976. The writ petition in filed of 18-11-1985 by 75 petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners are owners of Ac. 60-00 of land in Komatpally village, Nandipet Mandal, Armoor Taluk, Nizamabad District and the entire land is submerged in the Sriramsagar Project. It is stated that a meagre compensation of Rs. 2,66,215-44 was awarded in the Award No. 10/76-77 on 9-12-1976, It is further stated that the petitioners are not aware as to the date of the award inasmuch as no notice what-so-ever was given of the fact of the award being passed. Reliance is placed on S. 12 (2) to say that there is a statutory obligation imposed on the Collector under S. 12 (2) and the said obligation not having been discharged, limitation has not started under the proviso to S. 18 (2) of the Act. It is alleged that as the notice u/s. 12 (2) was not served, the petitioners were not in a position to submit any application for reference. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment in Spl. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition v. L. Sai Reddy, (1983) 2 Andh WR 235 : AIR 1984 Andh Pra 24. In that case is was held that the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to issue and send a copy of the award to the claimants and if such a copy is not sent, the limitation under proviso to S. 18 (2) of the Act would not commence. It is stated that the petitioners have made several requests to the respondent to refer the matter to the Civil Court u/s. 18 but that the respondent has not made any reference and has not given any reply to the requests of the petitioners. It is further alleged that when some other villagers sought a reference, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference and then the Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad enhanced the compensation in O. P. No. 2935 of 1981 and batch on 16-12-1983. It is therefore prayed that a writ of, Mandamus be issued to the respondent to make a reference.

( 3 ) A counter-affidavit is filed by the Special Deputy Collector, stating that the writ petition filed for a reference 8 years after the award is belated. It is pointed out that among the writ petitioners, only a few were the claimants and the award does not show the names of the other petitioners. Such of those who filed claims before the Land Acquisition Officer were served with notice of award under S. 12 (2) in accordance with the rules prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act and their signatures or thumb impressions were obtained. It is also stated that the said claimants received the compensation, without any protest and the statutory requirement is fulfilled. It is always open to the party aggrieved, either to apply for the copy of the award or peruse the same. The notice of award under S. 12 (2), it is stated, does not contemplate the service of the copy of the award itself. The notices served in the case give the details of the award i. e. , S. No. and sub-division, extent, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document