IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3958 of 2007 Between: 1 Smt.Jijiyani W/o.Late Sri Tejawath Sathya R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 2 Smt.Rajali W/o.Late Sri Modu Ramulu R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 3 Smt.Bhadri W/o.Late Sri Bhanoth Bitcha R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 4 Smt.Sali W/o.Late Sri Tejavath Lachiram R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 5 Smt.Manga W/o.Late Sri Ajmeera Haridas R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 6 Sri Appa Rao S/o.Late Sri Padmala Anantha Ramaiah R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 7 Sri Azmeera Tulisya S/o.Late Sri Ajmeera mangya R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 8 Cherukuri Narsaiah S/o.Kistaiah R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 9 Thummoju Hanumaiah S/o.Sambaiah R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 10 Cherukuri Satyam S/o.Kistaiah R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 11 Cherukuri Venkataratnam S/o.Kistaiah R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 12 Ajmeera Bhadru S/o.Narsingh R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 13 Smt.Kasani Sakkubai W/o.Late Sri.K.Papaiah R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District 14 Mukthi Lingaiah S/o.Narasingh R/o.Madharam village, Singareni Mandal Khammam District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothegudem, Khammam District 2 The District Collector,Khammam .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.SUMALINI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 3958 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation to the petitioners as provided under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) as per decree passed in O.P.No.182 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam District and also to direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for each of the petitioners for deprivation of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Heard Ms. M. Sumalini Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, impleaded respondent No.3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the lands of the petitioners situated in Madharam Village, Khammam District are acquired in respect of the lands covered by the same notification, the claims of certain land owners made under Section 18 of the Act were referred to the civil Court and registered as O.P.No.17 of 1983 and batch on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem. The said batch of cases was disposed of on 24.06.1988. Feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation, the respondents filed A.S.No.2328 of 1988 before this Court, which was allowed on 25.07.1999. However, LPA.No.222 of 1989 and batch preferred by the claimants/land owners were allowed on 12.04.1990 by modifying the judgment and decree of the civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed applications under Section 28A of the Act by filing certified copies of the judgments. The said applications were rejected seven years later by order dated 16.01.2007, impugned in this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.1 gave an unequivocal finding that the applications filed by the petitioners are well within the time stipulated under Section 28A of the Act. However, they were rejected purportedly on the ground of res judicata. Respondent No.1 reasoned that on an earlier occasion, the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer by his order dated 04.11.1996 rejected 25 applications filed in respect of Pocharam Village and that in view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to the enhanced compensation. I am unable to accept the reasoning given by respondent No.1. Ex-facie, the doctrine of res judicata, which applies only to the Court under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be applied to a statutory authority such as respondent No.1. At any rate, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners’ applications were rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Pocharam by order dated 04.11.1996. Therefore, the application of doctrine of res judicata to this case is wholly misplaced. Ms. Sumalini Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed before me order dated 12.02.2007 passed by this Court in WP.No.32224 of 1997, which was filed by the 25 applicants, whose applications were rejected on 04.11.1996. A perusal of the said order shows that this Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside order dated 04.11.1996 and remanded the matter to respondent No.1 for re-determination of the compensation. Since the impugned order is based on order dated 04.11.1996, which is set aside in the abovementioned writ petition, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the applications of the petitioners for re-determination of compensation under Section 28A of the Act in terms of the judgment and decree in O.P.No.17 of 1983 and batch as modified in LPA.No.222 of 1989 and batch. If respondent No.1 finds that the petitioners’ lands are covered by the same notification in respect of which the abovementioned judgment was rendered by this Court in LPA.222 of 1989 and batch, they are entitled to re-fixation of compensation in terms of Section 28A of the Act. As far as the prayer for payment of compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners is concerned, in my view, the same is wholly misconceived. Respondent No.1 is a statutory authority, which disposed of the applications albeit with a delay of seven years. There can be no two opinions that respondent No.1 ought to have shown reasonable dispatch in disposing of the petitioners’ applications. But at the same time, the petitioners have not pleaded, what to say of filing any material to show that they were pursuing with respondent No.1 for early disposal of their applications. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that respondent No.1 is charged with many other statutory and administrative duties and the State cannot be mulcted with penalties for every delay caused in the disposal of applications by its functionaries. This prayer is therefore rejected. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.5060 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.02.2008 ES