T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Venkatachalapathy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the Respondents and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for Final Disposal. The Petitioners seek for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents to refer the demand made by them in the Representation dated 18.2.2013, for enhancement of Compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking reference, with respect to their properties acquired under the Award No. 2/2008 dated 25.1.2008.

2. The facts regarding the Acquisition proceedings are not in dispute. The Respondents invoked the power under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dispensed with the Enquiry to be conducted under Section 5-A of the Act and issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Since Section 17(3-A) of the Act provides that before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 17, the Collector shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 17, tender payment of 80% of the Compensation for such land as estimated by him to the persons interested entitled thereto and (b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Section 31, sub-section (2).

3. The present case is not covered under Clause (b) of Section 17(3-A) of the Act and Clause (a) of Section 17(3-A) of the Act, would stand attracted and therefore, it was incumbent for the Collector to pay 80% of the Compensation prior to taking possession. This was followed by the Collector and the Petitioners were paid 80% of Compensation on 4.7.2006. On receipt of the said amount, the Petitioners immediately submitted objections on 18.7.2006, stating that the Compensation awarded to them is inadequate and they wanted enhanced Compensation. Therefore, at the earliest point of time, the Petitioners have expressed their dissatisfaction with regard to the Compensation which was arrived at.

4. For more than VA years, there appears to have been no progress in the matter and the Petitioners were issued Notices under Section 12(2) of the Act on 5.2.2008. The Petitioners specific case is that the copy of the Award was not communicated when the Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act were issued, which is mandatory.

5. The Respondents in their Counter Affidavit also do not deny the said fact specifically, but in a reply given under the Right to Information Act, they have candidly admitted that the copy of the Award has not been communicated to any person. Thus, it is clear that Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not accompanied with the copy of the Award dated 25.1.2008 and the information furnished under Right to Information Act on 11.1.2013, establishes the same. Therefore, there is an inherent defect in the procedure that is required to be followed.

6. It appears that one Petitioner participated in the Enquiry conducted under Section 12(2) of the Act and it is the case of the Petitioners that they expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the Compensation fixed. However, the matter was not referred to the Civil Court for deciding the claim for enhanced Compensation and therefore, the Petitioners submitted Representations on 18.12.2013 and since there was no positive response, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

7. Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Second Respondent, from which it is seen that they have raised two objections. Firstly, while admitting the fact that the Petitioners have given Objection Letters on 18.7.2006, the Respondents would state that the said Letter was given before the prescribed date. Therefore, it appears that the Respondents are not agreeable to take note of the said communication. The second objection is that in terms of Section 18(b) of the Act, the Petitioners having participated in the enquiry on receipt of Notice und