RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred by the second respondent in W.P. No. 22844 of 1994, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 16.09.2004 allowing the Writ Petition. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the Writ Petition seeking a mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA for short) to comply with their request, vide their letter dated 08.09.1994, to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 1894 Act) on 06.12.1986 for acquisition of a total extent of Ac.526.19 guntas. However only Ac.216.02 guntas was retained and the rest of the land, including the petitioners lands, were deleted by way of a notification issued, under Section 48(1) of the 1894 Act, on 04.12.1989. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed an application, under Section 48(2) of the 1894 Act, claiming compensation for the damages they sustained in the interregnum. As their request was not considered, they approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 11486 of 1992 and, by order dated 09.09.1992, the appellant was directed to consider their application. Contempt Case No. 247 of 1994, filed by them for non-compliance of the directions in W.P. No. 11486 of 1992 dated 09.09.1992, was disposed of by order dated 03.08.1994, directing the appellants herein to complete the process within a period of one month. Thereafter the appellants herein passed an order dated 24.08.1994 rejecting the claim of respondents 1 and 2 for damages. The petitioners filed an application on 08.09.1994, followed by a reminder on 05.10.1994, seeking reference to the Civil Court to determine the quantum of damages suffered by them. As no action was taken pursuant thereto, they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court which culminated in the order under appeal being passed.

3. In the order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge observed that, under Section 48(2) of the 1894 Act, a party, who has suffered damages, is entitled for compensation which has to be determined by the Collector under Section 48(3) of the Act; the entire provisions of Part III of the 1894 Act would apply for determination of compensation payable under the said Section; in view thereof, Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which was one of the provisions under Part III of the said Act, squarely steps in; a party, who is aggrieved by any order passed in regard to payment of damages or quantum thereof, can seek a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act; and the impugned action of the appellants, in not acting on the application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, was wholly illegal. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the appellants herein were directed to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court, under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, for the purpose of determination of compensation in the form of damages. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal.

4. Before us Sri. Y. Rama Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, would submit that Section 48(1) of the 1894 Act is attracted only when possession, of the lands under acquisition, has not been taken; Section 48(2) confers power on the Collector, whenever the Government withdraws from acquisition, to determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder; Section 48(3) makes the provisions of Part III of the 1894 Act (from Sections 18 to 28A) applicable only in so far as it applies to determination of the compensation payable under Section 48; Sections 23 and 24 provide guidance for determination of compensation; what is referred to in Section 48(3) is only to Sections 23 and 24 o