Judgment : 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:– The writ petitioner submits that the acquired land originally belonging to his grand father Late Mr. Shanmuga Mudaliyar and succeeded by his father Late Mr. Basi who died long back before the implementation of the land acquisition proceedings. The acquired land and surrounded lands were acquired for formation of national highways as per the request of the requisitioning authorities i.e., the respondents 1 to 4 herein. The lands in North Vellore Town Survey No.106/1 measuring 2257 sq feet, T.S.No.103/1B measuring 5520 sq feet, T.S.No.103/2A measuring 1269 sq feet, T.S.No.102/1B measuring 7140 sq feet and in T.S.No.105/1 measuring 1795 sq feet were acquired for the formation of national highways. The petitioner's grand father purchased the property in patta No.597 and enjoyed the same and after his demise his father inherited the property. By virtue of being his son, he also succeeded to the property after the demise of his father A.Basi Mudaliyar. The authority referred the matter before the Sub Court, Vellore for entitlement under Section 30 in L.A.O.P.No.45 of 1987 and L.A.O.P.No.70 of 1987 and entitlement was allowed in his favour. 2. The petitioner further submits that he appeared before the fifth respondent, viz., the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet and he asserted his title over the land and sought a higher compensation and recorded the same. The fifth respondent made reference only under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, as he objected to the compensation fixed by the authority and also he refused to receive the same. This amounts to asking for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. On reading the provision of Sections 18 and 30, the fifth respondent used to refer the matter simultaneously for apportionment of compensation and for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act but the fifth respondent after passing of the award referred the reference only for the determination of ownership under Section 30 only, which is arbitrary and error apparent on the face of the record. Further, after passing of the award, the fifth respondent has not caused notice under Section12(2) of the said Act as contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act which is a mandatory provision. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to submit his application for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Further, after passing of the award, the fifth respondent has not caused notice under Section12(2) of the said Act as contemplated in the Land Acquisition Act which is a mandatory provision. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to submit his application for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Further, there is no restriction in the Land Acquisition Act to make a reference for title to the award amount and for determination of the enhancement of compensation by a civil Court. The L.A.O.P.Nos.45 of 1987 and 70 of 1987 were decided in his favour, but even after that no reference under Section 18 ensued and hence caused a notice cum reminders on 31.07.2000, 05.02.2001 and 10.08.2001 and besides this, on 29.06.2001, a legal notice was issued to the fifth respondent and it was requested of him to make reference under Section 18 of the Act, but subsequently, the petitioner received an impugned reply-cum-order on 31.10.2001. This order discloses that his claim is time barred one. Further, the order discloses that the writ petitioner has not accepted the award amount till date due to his objections made during the enquiry. Hence, the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned order of the fifth respondent and to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Sub Court, Vellore for the purpose of determining the exact market value of the property. 3. In the said writ petition, notices have been served on 04.12.2002 on the respondents and inspite of that, the respondents have not filed a counter statement in this writ petition so far. Therefore, this Court is constrained to pass a final order on the basis of available records and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side. 4. The highly competent counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the fifth respondent i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer has not issued notice under Section 12(2)of the Land Acquisition Act regarding any connection made in the award to all persons interested regarding acquiring land. 4. The highly competent counsel for the writ petitioner argued that the fifth respondent i.e., the Land Acquisition Officer has not issued notice under Section 12(2)of the Land Acquisition Act regarding any connection made in the award to all persons interested regarding acquiring land. The learned counsel further contended that if an award made by the collector is in law, no more then and offer made on behalf of the Government to the owner of the property, then the making of the award as property understood must involve a communication of the offer to the party concerned and that is the nominal requirement under the contract law and applicability to the cases of award made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded. Therefore, there is a lack of service on the part of the respondents and hence, the writ petitioner is unable to submit his application under Section 18 of the Act before the concerned Sub Court for enhancement of compensation. Further, the petitioner sent three reminders on various dates and besides this, legal notice was also caused to the respondents herein and all the notices were served on the respondents. In order to prove the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner annexed the acknowledgments in the writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents argued that the entire amount is to be paid to the writ petitioner by the Sub Court, Vellore. Further, as per Act, the writ petitioner has not made any application within the stipulated period i.e., within three months and therefore, his request was rejected. The order was passed on 21.08.1990, but the petitioner had made representation in the year 2000 that is after 10 years. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable since the respondents have observed all legal formalities. 6. Per contra the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that one of the land owners has filed writ petition No.4146 of 2001 against the same respondent on the same set of facts and the same has been allowed and the fifth respondent was directed to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, the learned counsel has sought same remedy in this Court. 7. Hence, the learned counsel has sought same remedy in this Court. 7. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the fifth respondent and also considering this Court's order passed in W.P.No.4146 of 2001, the impugned order of the first respondent is set-aside and the fifth respondent is directed to refer the matter to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court's further view is that the impugned order discloses that the petitioner's applications dated 31.07.2000, 05.02.2001 and 10.08.2001 have not been received. However, it is seen that the petitioner's application dated 10.08.2001 which had been addressed to the first respondent had been received by him and it is also seen that the legal notice issued by the petitioner to the first and fifth respondents herein have also been received by them on 27.09.2001. In order to prove the same, the xerox copy of the acknowledgment card has been annexed with the writ petition. As such, there is a shortcoming in the impugned order of the fifth respondent. If the matter is referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, the respondent will not be prejudiced. At the same time, if the matter is not referred to the civil Court under Section 18, then the writ petitioner will be put into hardship since the acquired land is located in the prime area within the Vellore Municipal Corporation Area and it has great potential for being developed into a residential area. Further, this Court is of the view that the petitioner so far has not received the compensation amount from the Sub Court, Vellore, as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such a situation, for determining its market value, the matter has to be referred to the civil Court. 8. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order of the third respondent in O.Mu.7576/2001, dated 31.10.2001 is quashed. Subsequently, this Court directs the fifth respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the Sub Court, Vellore. There is no order as to costs.