AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellant and Sri R. N. Hemendranath reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Penukonda, anantapur District is the appellant in this appeal and the petitioner in W. P. No. 16985 of 2000 is the respondent herein, namely, appireddy Gari Chenna Reddy. Writ petition No. 16985 of 2000 was filed by the respondent herein to issue a Mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Penukonda to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ). According to the respondent herein, his land measuring an extent of Ac. 3. 62 cents in Sy. Nos. 701 and 702 of Talamarla village of Kothacheruvu mandal was acquired by the appellant under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving house-sites to the people belonging to weaker sections of the society. An Award was passed on 30-3-1998 awarding Rs. 40,000. 00 per acre towards compensation. However, by mistake, the appellant had shown one nagalakshmamma as the owner of land in sy. No. 701 measuring Ac. 3. 62 cents though, in fact, the respondent herein, namely, appireddy Gari Chenna Reddy, is the real owner and possessor of the same. The award notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was served on the writ petitioner on 23-6-1998. The writ petitioner-respondent herein after detecting the defect immediately made a representation through his Advocate with necessary document on 6-7-1998 seeking correction in the award. In the same representation, the writ petitioner requested the appellant to refer the matter to civil Court expressing his readiness to receive the awarded amount under protest. Subsequently, the said defect was rectified and the writ petitioner had also received the amount in respect of the said land, under protest, Since the appellant was not evincing any interest in referring the matter to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act in spite of several representations, the writ petitioner was compelled to file W. P. No. 16985 of 2000 for the aforementioned relief. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by b. L. Chennakesava Rao, Revenue Divisional officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, penukonda, the sole respondent, who is well acquainted with the facts of the case. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit was filed by b. L. Chennakesava Rao, Revenue Divisional officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, penukonda, the sole respondent, who is well acquainted with the facts of the case. He denied the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. According to him, the writ petitioner refused to accept the notice under Sec. 12 (2) of the Act, but curiously sought to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Act and that there is no application filed either by the writ petitioner or his Advocate seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act and as such, he denied the contention of the writ petitioner that the authorities did not refer the application under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. ( 4 ) OUR attention was drawn to the statement made by the writ petitioner in paragraph 4 of the petition filed before the respondent on 6-7-1998, which reads as follows:"4. The delinquent had demanded rs. 60,000/- per acre for the schedule lands in awarding compensation, but the Land Acquisition authorities have awarded only Rs. 40,000. 00 per acre, which is a low one and the delinquent is ready to receive awarded amount under protest and the matter may be referred to Civil Court for proper adjudication. The Land Acquisition authorities have also not paid compensation for the well situated in schedule lands. As Land Acquisition authorities found that it is difficult to decide the title of the schedule lands between the delinquent and nagalakshmamma, wife of narasimhareddy, the matter may be referred under Section 30 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 to Civil Court in the interests of justice. " ( 5 ) A close scrutiny of the above statement would only reveal that the writ petitioner- respondent herein had received the awarded amount under protest and requested the Land Acquisition authorities/ to refer the matter to the Civil Court for proper adjudication. Since the name of nagalakshmamma, wife of Narasimha reddy was also mentioned, the writ petitioner-respondent herein made a request to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 30 of the Act. Since the name of nagalakshmamma, wife of Narasimha reddy was also mentioned, the writ petitioner-respondent herein made a request to refer the matter to the Civil Court under section 30 of the Act. Since the said defect was rectified later, the writ petitioner did not press for the said relief for referring the matter under Section 30 of the Act, but confined himself only to the prayer to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act to the civil Court. ( 6 ) OUR attention was also drawn to the petition filed on behalf of the writ petitioner before the appellant herein on 6-7-1998, notice of Award under Section 12 (2) of the act, payments made to the writ petitioner under Form-CC dated 5-12-1998 and other connected records. We have perused the proceedings of the appellant dated 29-3-1998 awarding compensation to the writ petitioner-respondent herein. We have also perused the order dated 15-2-2002 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition no. 16985 of 2000 by which the writ petition was allowed by awarding costs of rs. 5,000/ -. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge was compelled to award Rs. 5,000. 00 by way of costs for the reasons mentioned in his order, which are as follows:"the interpretation put forward by the land Acquisition Officer on the petition made by the petitioner s counsel on 6-7-98 is either by ignorance of law or by deliberate inaction to deprive the legitimate right of the petitioner to claim enhancement of compensation. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking reference of the mattes to Civil Court for proper adjudication mainly on two grounds, firstly, with regard to S. No. 701, the name of Nagalakshmamma was wrongly mentioned, and secondly, the market value fixed by the Land acquisition Officer is very low. In view of the specific averment that the petitioner is ready to receive the award amount under protest and the matter may be referred to the Civil Court for proper adjudication, the stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that the matter need not be referred to Civil court as the compensation awarded was received without any protest is not justified. Equally, the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for land Acquisition that when the award amount was received on 15-12-1998 through demand draft without any protest, the petitioner is not entitled to seek reference is without any substance. In view of the law declared by this court in Special Deputy Collector (L. A.) v. N. Sangaiah1 the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the respondent to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before parting with the case, it is relevant to note that due to laches on the part of the respondent-Land acquisition officer, the matter was not referred to the Civil Court. In the event if the Civil Court enhances compensation, the State Government is liable to pay the same with interest, which will be burdensome to pay the same due to the deliberate attitude of the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, the concerned authorities may look into the matter and see that State exchequer shall not be burdened for the laches on the part of such officers, who are equally responsible for the loss caused to the State Government 1. 2002 (2) ALT 519. due to enhancement of compensation and payment of interest and may take action against such Officers according to law. " ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the land Acquisition Officer. ( 9 ) THE reasons given by the learned single Judge for allowing the writ petition and awarding costs of Rs. 5,000. 00 are cogent and convincing and do not call for interference in this appeal. We do not find any merit in this appeal. ( 10 ) IT is pertinent to refer to para- graph-3 of the affidavit filed by sri B. L. Chennakesava Rao, Land acquisition Officer appellant herein - in support of W. A. M. P. No. 2282 of 2002 in the context of awarding costs in this appeal also. "3. I humbly submit that the order under Appeal was pronounced on 15-2-2002 and immediately copy application was filed by the government Pleader s Office on 16-2-2002. On 10-4-2002 the High Court registry made the certified copy ready. "3. I humbly submit that the order under Appeal was pronounced on 15-2-2002 and immediately copy application was filed by the government Pleader s Office on 16-2-2002. On 10-4-2002 the High Court registry made the certified copy ready. After receipt of the certified copy from the Registry, the same was forwarded to the Office of the Revenue Divisional officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer and the same was received in my office on 10-5-2002. Even prior to receipt of the certified copy of the order from the government Pleader s Office, on 15-4-2002 I addressed a letter to the district Collector for according sanction in order to comply with the orders of the Hon ble High Court. On 19-6-2002 I received a letter from the district Collector, Anantapur, directing me to approach the Government pleader for filing Writ Appeal in this case. It is important to submit that since the entire Anantapur District had been declared as a drought prone area and in view of the fact that the government instructed the District collector for assessing the loss sustained by the ryots due to the drought and also to distribute the subsidy amount to the affected farmers and the same is still going on and as such, I could not immediately contact the Govt. Pleader for filing Writ appeal. . . . . . . " ( 11 ) IT is seen from the above paragraph that even prior to the receipt of the certified copy of the order from the Government pleader s Office, on 15-4-2002 the Land acquisition Officer - appellant herein - addressed a letter to the District Collector, anantapur for according sanction in order to comply with the orders of this Court and on 19-6-2002 he received a letter from the district Collector directing him to approach the Government Pleader for filing the writ, appeal in the matter. He also explained the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal, which has been condoned by this Court on 2-8-2002. Be that as it may, a direction issued by the District Collector not to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and at the same time to file the appeal by approaching the Government Pleader, in our opinion, is wholly illegal and against the real state of affairs. Be that as it may, a direction issued by the District Collector not to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and at the same time to file the appeal by approaching the Government Pleader, in our opinion, is wholly illegal and against the real state of affairs. Realising the fact that the appellant had no case in the appeal, he requested the District Collector, who is the superior authority, even prior to receipt of the certified copy of the order from the government Pleader s Office, by his letter dated 15-4-2002 to accord sanction in order to comply with the order of this Court. However, the District Collector sent a letter on 19-6-2002 to the appellant directing him to approach the Government Pleader for filing a writ appeal. In our opinion, the Writ appeal is an abuse of process of law. The district Collector, Anantapur by directing the appellant to approach the Government pleader for filing an appeal has indulged in unnecessary and vexatious litigation at the cost of the Government. In this case, since the appeal is filed by the Government, the court fee is exempted; otherwise, the government would have further incurred the expenditure by way of court fee and other incidental expenses. ( 12 ) THE Government in matters like this should always deal with the problem in a pragmatic manner. In the instant case, the government wants to enforce its power of eminent domain. The Government by enforcing the said right and having acquired the land belonging to the respondent herein ought to have referred the matter to the Civil court under Section 18 of the Act since the land owner was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Offirer. Without referring the matter to the Civil Court, the District collector and the Land Acquisition Officer are unnecessarily indulging in vexatious litigation. This Court takes very serious note of the action of the District Collector, anantapur in directing the appellant-Land acquisition Officer to approach the government Pleader to file the appeal. Even the appeal was not filed within the stipulated time. This Court taking a lenient view of the matter has, however, condoned the delay. This Court expresses its total displeasure in the way in which the matters are being handled by the Governmental authorities. Even the appeal was not filed within the stipulated time. This Court taking a lenient view of the matter has, however, condoned the delay. This Court expresses its total displeasure in the way in which the matters are being handled by the Governmental authorities. In our opinion, this is eminently a fit case for awarding exemplary costs of rs. 5,000/-, which shall be shared by the district Collector, Anantapur and the Land acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional officer, Penukonda equally. The costs shall be paid within two weeks from to-day; failing which, the salary disbursing authority of the District Collector and the land Acquisition Officer shall deduct the same from the salaries payable to them and pay the same to the respondent herein. ( 13 ) THE appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of rs. 5,000/ -. The appellant is directed to refer the matter to the Civil Court within two weeks from to-day and send a compliance report to this Court.