ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in rejecting the application dated 23.03.1990 filed U/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act through Lr No B/1210/1990 dated 14.03.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to refer the matter to Civil Court relating to the land of the petitioner bearing Survey Number 115 situated at Komatpally village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District under Sec. 18 of Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation or to pass such any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”

I. BRIEF FACTS:

2. The case of petitioners, in brief, is that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.115 admeasuring Ac.2.09 guntas situated at Komatipally Village, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad District, which came to be acquired by the respondents under Award No.10/76-77 dated 09.12.1976. It is their specific case that at the time of passing of the award, payment of compensation in respect of the said survey number was deferred on the ground that it was an inam land and that no patta certificate had been produced. Consequently, the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for adjudication of title.

3. It is further pleaded that subsequently, after obtaining patta and necessary clarification from the Government, the father of petitioner No.2 claimed compensation in the year 1988, before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, and ultimately received compensation on 21.03.1990 under protest. It is specifically further stated that within two days thereof, i.e., on 23.03.1990, he had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the competent Civil Court, for enhancement of compensation which application according to them was well within the time prescribed under the Act.

4. The petitioners contend that despite repeated correspondence and representations, including proceedings dated 17.06.1999 and 03.11.1999 seeking clarification and legal opinion, and subsequent representations dated 07.06.2004 and 02.06.2005, requesting reference under Section 18 of the Act, the respondents failed to take any action. Even after the death of the second petitioner's father on 05.08.2008, the matter remained pending, and ultimately, based on the opinion of the learned Government Pleader dated 07.12.2012, to the effect that that the petition under Section 18 was barred by limitation, the Respondent No.3 rejected the claim vide letter dated 14.03.2013.

II. SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES:

(a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the application filed under Section 18 of the Act, on the ground of limitation is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the settled legal position governing commencement of limitation under the Act. It is contended that in the absence of mandatory notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the question of limitation under Section 18 does not arise.

6. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioners predecessor-in-title had received compensation under protest and had sought reference to the competent Civil Court within the time prescribed under the Act. Despite the same, the respondents kept the matter pending for an inordinate period and ultimately rejected the claim solely on the basis of an internal legal opinion, without properly examining the statutory requirements under Section 12(2) of the Act.

7. In support of the above submissions, reliance is placed upon the decision in Parsa Seetha Rama Rao v. Special Tahsildar Manugur, Khammam¹2005 (2) ALD 158, wherein this Court categorically held that issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of t