ORDER
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. The petitioners seek for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to make a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the lands acquired in Survey No.61/11 to an extent of 0.31 cents and S.No.61/12 to an extent of 0.62 cents (W.P.No.31678 of 2002), in Survey No.61/9 to an extent of 0.28 3/4cents, S.No.66/1 to an extent of 0.14 cents and S.No.67/2 to an extent of 0.37 cents (W.P.No.31679 of 2002), in Survey No.61/9 to an extent of 0.05 cents, S.No.62/3 to an extent of 0.24 cents, S.No.61/7 to an extent of 0.19 cents (W.P.No.31680 of 2002) which forms part of the Award in Award No.5 of 1988 dated 1.9.1988, to the Sub Court, Ranipet.
2. A perusal of the award in the Award No.5 of 1988, dated 1.4.1988 discloses that, while the petitioners made a demand for higher compensation at the rate of Rs.2500 per cent, ultimately, they agreed to receive the compensation determined by the Acquisition Officer under protest. Accordingly, while the compensation was awarded by the first respondent, it was held as under.
“Thiru. Murugesa Gounder, S/o. Ekappa Gounder has appeared for award enquiry on 29.3.1988 and stated that he purchased an extent of 0.31 out of 0.62 acre in S.No.61/12 from Thiru. K.Subramanian, S/o. Kuppathai Mudaliar as per document No.93/74 dated 19.1.1974. Another extent of 0.31 acre was purchased by him from Thiru.Vadivelu Mudaliar, S/o.Ponnappa Mudaliar as per document No. 94/74 dated 19.1.1974. The above pattadar is enjoying the above land with free from encumbrances. There are no trees, wells or structures in the land under acquisition. He has demanded higher compensation @ Rs.2500/- per cent. He has agreed to receive the amount under protest.
In the above circumstances, the amount of compensation as worked out below for the land measuring 0.62 acre in S.No.61/12 is ordered to be awarded to Thiru.Murugesa Gounder S/o. Ekappa gounder. A reference u/s. 18 of the L.A. Act will be sent to the Principal Subordinate Judge, North Arcot, Vellore, to decide the compensation as per rules.”
3. Therefore, the petitioner contended that inspite of such a categorical direction has been made in the award, the same was not referred to the appropriate Tribunal for determining the higher compensation and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking for issuance of the direction. However, the learned Special Government Pleader, by referring to Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, contended that in as much as there was no separate application made by the petitioners that too within the stipulated time limit, as provided in that sub section, the petitioners are not entitled for the reference as sought for in these Writ Petitions.
4. I am unable to accept the contention so raised on behalf of the respondents herein. When in the award itself specific reference has been made to the demand made by the petitioner for higher compensation and also his preparedness to receive the compensation under protest and therefore, the first respondent decided to make a reference of the award to the appropriate Tribunal for deciding compensation payable to the petitioners, there is no need for the petitioners to make a separate application applications seeking for a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act .
5. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that by virtue of the decision taken by the first respondent in the award that a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, would be sent to the Principal Subordinate Judge, in view of the demand for higher compensation made by the petitioners and the receipt of the compensation awarded in Award No.5/88 under protest, the first respondent should have referred the Award No.5/88, dated 1.9.1988, to the Sub Court, Ranipet, which is the mandatory requirement of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for adjudication in regard to the payment of higher compensation. The right of the petitioner for getting compensation to be adjudicated upon by the appropriate Tribunal by way of a reference got crystalised under the provisions of the Act, the moment the first respondent took a decision to make a reference under the Award itself. Thereafter nothing more was required to be done on the part of the petitioners.
6. Therefore, there was no question of making any formal application under section 18 of the Act, for the purpose of making a reference and therefore, I am of the view, that the first respondent is bound to refer the award in Award No. 5/88 under Section 18 of the Act in relation to the lands acquired in Survey No.61/11 to an extent of 0.31 cents, S.No.61/12 to an extent of 0.62 cents (W.P.No.31678 of 2002), in Survey No.61/9 to an extent of 0.28 3/4cents, S.No.66/1 to an extent of 0.14 cents and in S.No.67/2 to an extent of 0.37 cents (W.P.No.31679 of 2002) in Survey No.61/9 to an extent of 0.05 cents, S.No.62/3 to an extent of 0.24 cents, S.No.61/7 to an extent of 0.19 cents (W.P.No.31680 of 2002) for adjudication to the Sub Court Ranipet, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.