IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO: 17647 of 1993 Between: Between: 1 D. Jagannadha Raju (died), S/o. Venkata Narayana Raju, R/o. Amenan, Bheemunipatnam Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Danthuluri Satyavathi Devi W/o late Jagannadha Raju garu R/o Amanamu Post, Bhimili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. (The Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs by deceased petition as per court order dt.21-1-99 in WPMP 3670/98) 3 Danthuluri Suryanarayana Raju S/o late Jagannadha Raju garu R/o Amanamu (Po), Bhimili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. (The Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs by deceased petition as per court order dt.21-1-99 in WPMP 3670/98) 4 Danthuluri Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Raju S/o late Jagannadha Raju garu, R/o Amanamu (Po), Bhimili (M), Visakhapatnam Dist. (The Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs by deceased petition as per court order dt.21-1-99 in WPMP 3670/98) 5 Danthuluri Padmanabha Raju S/o late Jagannadha Raju garu R/o Amanamu (Po), Bhimili (M), Visakhapatnam Dist. (The Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs by deceased petition as per court order dt.21-1-99 in WPMP 3670/98) 6 Danthuluri Varaha Venkata Seetharama Raju, S/o late Jagannadha Raju Garu, R/o Amanamu (Po), Bhimili (M), Visakhapatnam Dist. (The Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs by deceased petition as per court order dt.21-1-99 in WPMP 3670/98) 7 Pusapati Uma Devi, S/o Sri Hari, R/o Amanamu (Po), Bhimili (M), Visakhapatnam Dist. (The Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs by deceased petition as per court order dt.21-1-99 in WPMP 3670/98) ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Land Acquisition Officer & Spl. Deputy Collector (L.A.), VUDA, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO.17647 OF 1993 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner, who subsequently died and represented through his legal representatives, seeks a writ for a direction to the respondent to refer his claim for enhancement with reference to its award No.5 of 1986 dated 19-05-1986 to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) for the purpose of determination of the market value and enhancement thereof. 2. The claim of the petitioner rests on the facts that he is the owner of the land in Survey No.35/1 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in Koormannapalem village, Gajuwaka Mandal, near Visakhapatnam, and the same was acquired by the respondent herein by issuance of a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 20-07-1984. Thereafter, admittedly, a common award was passed in Award No.5 of 1986 on 19-05-1986 fixing the market value at Rs.7.50 per square yard as compensation. The petitioner received the said amount of compensation under protest by making due endorsement thereof and further, on 30-05-1986 he has also filed a protest letter seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. He also filed the copies of notice issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act dated 19-05-1986 and the protest letter on the even date i.e., on which he received the compensation. Further, it is stated that some similarly placed persons’ acquisition was duly referred to the Civil Court and ultimately, the civil Court has enhanced the compensation in O.P.No.134 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, as per judgment and decree dated 21-02-1990. Hence, the writ petition. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that there is no dispute in regard to the petitioner’s ownership or the proceedings issued under the provisions of the Act and ultimate award passed on 19-05-1986. However, it is stated that except merely receiving the amount under protest, the petitioner did not file any separate application seeking reference to Civil Court on par with the other persons whose lands have been acquired and who also filed separate applications seeking reference. Therefore, in the absence of any such proper application, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for. It is also pointed out that on the earlier occasion, this Court in W.P.No.4224 of 1991, by order dated 02-03-1991, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s case for reference in the event of any application being filed. Since there is no application filed by the petitioner, the matter could not refer. However, in regard to the reference made at the instance of the other individuals in O.P.No.134 of 2001, the compensation was enhanced. 4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the record, the point for consideration is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of the land, which has been acquired by the respondent herein. 5. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner’s land has been acquired on 20-07-1984 and the award has been passed on 19-05-1986. Along with the petitioner’s lands, some other extents of lands have also been acquired and in respect of which though the notification is one and the purpose is also one, in respect of others’ lands a reference was made in O.P.No.134 of 1987 and the same was disposed of on 21-02-1990. The petitioner is admittedly made an endorsement of receipt of the amount on 30-05-1986 “under protest”. The case of the respondent is that no application has been filed separately. Where as it is the case of the petitioner that on the very same day he has filed a protest letter and yet no reference has been made. It is also admitted that subsequently, the petitioner has sent an application through a separate letter dated 21-03-1990 and the same is also sought to be denied by the respondent. 6. Having regard to the fact that under the very same notification and also for the same acquisition, similar references have already been made and disposed of enhancing compensation by the reference Court at the instance of others under Section 28-A of the Act, no other reason has been shown as to why the petitioner has been denied of the same on par with similar other persons. However, the Government was not a party neither to the said proceedings nor there was any claim or intimation in regard thereof. The petitioner was under bona fide impression that his request is still under consideration. Taking into view the aspect of other similarly placed persons, and also the protest endorsement made by the petitioner at the time of receipt of the compensation, which can be described as valid request for seeking reference to that Court, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner also ought to have been referred to the Civil Court on par with others. 7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to refer the matter to a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for interpretation of the market value in respect of the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.35/1 of an extent of Ac.1-50 cents situated at Koormnnapalem village, Gajuvaka Mandal, near Visakhapatnam. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from today. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO, J --------------------------------- DR. G.YETHIRAJULU, J 03rd October, 2005 SKM