L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 4/b admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1-10 guntas situated at Adrial village, Karimnagar District, was acquired by the 1st respondent for the purpose of mining operations of the Singareni Collieries. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ) was published on 21-6-1985. An Award was passed on 18-9-1987 in respect of various items of lands as well as that of the petitioner. The compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 16,000. 00 per acre for went lands in category-I; Rs. 7,000. 00 per acre for the dry land in category-II; and Rs. 6,000. 00 per acre for dry land in category-Ill. Inasmuch as the title of the petitioner s land was in dispute, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The reference was taken up as OP No. 11 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli. The Reference Court ordered OP No. 11 of 1988 in favour of the petitioner, through order dated 21-4-1989. It is the case of the petitioner that he received the compensation under protest from the Court after disposal of the reference. ( 2 ) IN the meanwhile, at the instance of the other land owners, the matter was referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act in respect of other lands and the same was registered as OP No. 77 of 1988 in the same Court. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 18,000. 00, Rs. 10,000. 00 and Rs. 9,500/- per acre respectively for the three categories referred to above, through order dated 30-10-1989. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that enclosing a copy of the order and decree in OP No. 77 of 1988, he submitted application to the respondent under Section 28-A of the Act on 27-1-1990. However, the same was rejected by the respondent through orders dated 16-12-1992 on three grounds, viz. , (1) that the application of the petitioner is not within the limitation; (2) the petitioner has not received the amount under protest; and (3) the application is not enclosed by the certified copy of the judgment. However, the same was rejected by the respondent through orders dated 16-12-1992 on three grounds, viz. , (1) that the application of the petitioner is not within the limitation; (2) the petitioner has not received the amount under protest; and (3) the application is not enclosed by the certified copy of the judgment. It is alleged in the writ petition that the said three grounds of rejection are contrary to records and cannot be sustained in law. Ultimately, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari calling for the records for quashing the proceedings dated 16-12-1992 and for a consequential direction to predetermine the compensation for his land under Section 28-A of the Act and to pay compensation. ( 4 ) THE respondent filed a counter-affidavit. Inasmuch ass most of the contentions are matters of record, they are not in dispute. However, the respondent says that verification of the official records reveals that the petitioner did not submit his application within the stipulated time; there is nothing to show that he received the compensation under protest and the application was enclosed with the certified copy of the judgment. On the basis of these contentions, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 5 ) HEARD Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Peddanna, the leaned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. ( 6 ) THE fact that the land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 4/b admeasuring Ac. 1. 10 guntas was acquired through notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act published on 21-6-1983 along with the lands of others is not in dispute. It is also the matter of record that in respect of the claim of the petitioner, the matter was referred under Section 30 of the Act, while in respect of the other items of the land acquired through the same notification, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Act, to the civil Court. The petitioner contended that after the reference under Section 30 of the Act was in his favour, he received the compensation under protest and he filed a memo indicating the protest. According to him, after the disposal of the reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of the other lands, he obtained a certified copy of the judgment and decree and submitted an application on 27-1-1990. According to him, after the disposal of the reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of the other lands, he obtained a certified copy of the judgment and decree and submitted an application on 27-1-1990. The respondent rejected the same on the ground that it was not filed in time. Therefore, much depends in this case on the factum as to whether the petitioner submitted the application on 27-1-1990. ( 7 ) WHILE it is the assertion of the petitioner that he submitted an application on 27-1-1990 and the Superintendent of the respondent office acknowledged the same, the respondent denied the same. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent denied the allegation of the petitioner on the basis of the entries in the note file. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that in the note file dated 28-1-1990, only the application of one J. Prathap Rao and others was referred and since there was no reference to the application of the petitioner, it has been presumed that he did not file his application on 27-1-1990 or the next day. ( 8 ) THE claim of the petitioner as to the filing of the application can be denied if only it is established that the receipt issued by the Superintendent in proof of receiving the application is found to be not genuine. The counter-affidavit does not throw any light on the same. The reference to entries in the note file on 28-1-1990 is of no relevance. Further, the entries in the note file are matters of internal affairs of the office of the respondent. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the existence or otherwise of an entry in the note file. In addition to that, the respondent was not definite as to receipt of application of the petitioner. After referring to various aspects, what all he says ultimately is that:"therefore, it creates doubt that the petitioner filed the application in the month of February, 1990 during the course of enquiry on the application of J. Prathap Rao and (8) others. Therefore, there are strong grounds to hold that the application filed by the petitioner was beyond limitation. "the valuable rights of the citizens conferred under enactments cannot depend on the doubts or imaginations of the authorities operating under the Act. No statement was recorded from the Superintendent, who has issued by the receipt. Therefore, there are strong grounds to hold that the application filed by the petitioner was beyond limitation. "the valuable rights of the citizens conferred under enactments cannot depend on the doubts or imaginations of the authorities operating under the Act. No statement was recorded from the Superintendent, who has issued by the receipt. No finding is recorded that the receipt issued by the Superintendent is not genuine. Under these circumstances, it has to be taken that the petitioner submitted his application on 27-1-1990, which admittedly is within the limitation. ( 9 ) THE 2nd ground is equally untenable. In the affidavit in Para 4 (b), the petitioner has categorically stated that he received the compensation from the Court under protest and had specifically recorded the protest in the memo filed into the Court in OP No. 11 of 1988. There is no specific answer to this memo. Therefore, the 2nd objection raised by the respondent cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) COMING to the 3rd ground as to the enclosure of the judgment and decree, it is to be noticed that while it is the case of the petitioner that he enclosed the copy of the judgment and decree in OP No. 77 of 1988, the respondent says that the application was not enclosed by the judgment, meaning thereby that, there was no dispute as to the enclosure of the decree. The petitioner has pleaded that on the same day i. e. , 27-1-1990, several other applicants relating to the same notification had filed applications enclosing certified copies of the judgment and decree. Once it emerges that the application was enclosed by the decree and several persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification, had filed applications enclosing the copies of the judgment and decree, any objection in this regard only appears to be hyper-technical. ( 11 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondent to redetermine the compensation in respect of the land of the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act and pay the same to the petitioner, within three months form the date of receipt of this order. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.