Land Acquisition | Landowners Can't Suffer Because Govt Failed To Forward Plea For Enhanced Compensation To Civil Court: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that landowners who filed applications seeking reference to civil court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 Land Acquisition Act cannot be made to suffer for State's inaction in not registering the landowners application or tracing out the same.

In doing so, it dismissed appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against an order directing the authorities to refer landowners' claims for enhancement of compensation to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi held that the landowners could not be made to suffer merely because the authorities failed to register their application or subsequently failed to trace it in their records.

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enables a person aggrieved by an award to seek a reference to the civil Court for determination of the matters specified in the provision, including enhancement of compensation.

The landowners had produced a written application to the District Collector seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, bearing the receipt and stamp of the concerned office. The State, however, contended that no such application could be traced in its official records.

The Court rejected the contention, observing:

"By the order under challenge passed in the writ petition, the direction has been given to the respondents in the writ petition to refer the matter to the civil court. Once there was application on record and that too from its date, it transpires to us to be within the period of limitation as provided under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, there was justification for the order passed. There was no occasion for the writ court not to pass that order directing the District Collector to make the reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. 

We are of the further view that if as per the case of the writ appellants, the application was not traceable in their office or was not registered, that makes no difference. Once its filing is proved and the learned Judge was satisfied based on the material about the filing of the written application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as we are also satisfied from the documents on record, the writ petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the writ appellants in not registering the application or in failing to trace out the same.”

The case arose out of land acquisition proceedings in respect of agricultural lands identified as submerged lands under the Somasila Reservoir Project.

The landowners claimed that the compensation awarded to them was meagre and that they had received it under protest. They thereafter claimed to have filed an application under Section 18 seeking reference of their claims to the competent civil Court for enhancement of compensation.

The application produced by the landowners bore the receipt and stamp of the concerned office, supporting their claim that it had been filed. They contended that despite receipt of the application, the authorities neither acted upon it nor referred the matter to the civil Court.

The landowners consequently approached the High Court. The Single Judge directed the authorities to make a reference under Section 18 to the civil Court, leaving it to the civil Court to decide whether the landowners had signed the consent forms along with the reference without reference to the delay in referring the matter, for further adjudication and enhancement of compensation. 

The State thereafter sought review, contending that no application under Section 18 was traceable in the official records and that no registered notice relating to such an application was found in the office. The review was dismissed, following which the State filed the writ appeals.

Before the Division Bench, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that no application under Section 18 had been filed, as no such application was entered in the official records or traced in the office. He relied on the written instructions furnished by the Special Deputy Collector (LA).

The landowners, on the other hand, submitted that the application filed along with the writ petition clearly showed that it had been received and stamped in the office. They further pointed out that no counter-affidavit had been filed disputing the application.

The Bench consequently drew an adverse inference against the official respondents and held that the contents of the writ petition relating to filing of the written application, supported by the document produced on record, remained unrebutted. In this regard the Court observed:

“When the direction was given to file the counter-affidavit and the counter-affidavit was not filed, those written instructions could not be taken into consideration, against the writ averments or affidavit contrary to which there was no counter-affidavit in rebuttal. The written instructions were meant for the Government Pleader, which were passed on to the Court and even if the Court had taken on record, unless those were placed before the Court on the affidavit, for which direction was given, the Court would not be required to look into those written instructions or to rely thereon.”

On limitation, the Court found that the application appeared to have been filed within the period prescribed under Section 18 and upheld the direction by the learned Single Judge to make the reference to the civil Court.

The Bench noted that the Single Judge had directed the civil Court to decide whether the landowners had signed the consent form along with the Section 18 reference, without reference to the delay in referring the matter. It held that the civil Court would adjudicate the issue in accordance with the Single Judge's directions.

Finding no illegality in the orders passed by the Writ Court, the High Court dismissed both writ appeals.

The application for condonation of delay in filing one of the appeals was allowed, but the appeals themselves were dismissed. There was no order as to costs.

Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Rendla Subba Reddy & Others

Case Nos.: Writ Appeal Nos. 830 and 834 of 2026

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Dilip Naik, Assistant Government Pleader

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. Sudeepthi Potluri

Click Here To Read/Download Order